1951-12-13

Mr. George A. Drew (Leader of Ihe Opposition):: I rise on a question of privilege. In view of the fact that we are coming reasonably close, or would appear to be coming reasonably close, to the termination of this special session-and may I say I do not think that should be for some days yet- I would ask the Prime Minister if he is in a position to announce to the house any arrangements that have been made for the Prime Minister of Great Britain and those coming with him which may affect members of the house.


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: No definite arrangements have
yet been made. The tentative plan of the prime minister is that he will arrive here on Sunday, January 13. There have been some suggestions as to what his program might be while here but it has not yet been definitely determined.



PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

[Stage Direction]
Second and third reports of standing committee on public accounts.-Mr. Picard.

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to present the fourth and final report of the special committee which was appointed to consider the procedure of this house. Copies of the report have been distributed to the members. There are quite a few points covered in the report, and if the house would prefer it I will try to explain it. The house might then be able to follow it more easily. The report is in three parts. The first part recommends permanent changes which should be made in the rules at this time. The second part recommends a change which should be tried on an experimental basis next year, and the third part sets out other matters which the committee has considered.
Part I recommends that the hours of sitting should be the same in future as they have
been during the latter part of this session with the exception that the dinner recess will be from six o'clock to eight o'clock p.m. There is also a provision that public and private bills will be dealt with on Tuesdays and Fridays from five to six o'clock in the afternoon instead of the former hour, which was from eight to nine o'clock on Tuesdays and Fridays. There is also a provision that on one of the days private bills will have priority, and on the other day public bills will have priority. With that report there is a recommendation that the necessary changes in the standing orders should be made immediately.
Part II recommends that the length of speeches should be 30 minutes instead of 40 minutes. However, I should point out that it does not recommend that the change should be made immediately in this rule, but recommends that it be tried out during the next session, or until otherwise ordered.
Part III sets forth other matters which the committee has considered but upon which a recommendation has not been made. The committee considered whether a debate should be allowed on money resolutions when the Speaker is in the chair, and also whether it is necessary for the minister in moving a money resolution to rise in his place and inform the house that the Governor General has been informed of and recommends the resolution to the consideration of the house. The committee considered, too, whether Mr. Speaker should leave the chair on Wednesday when there is a motion to go into supply or committee of ways and means. Hon. members will recall that at the present time, in order for the Speaker to leave the chair on Mondays, Tuesdays and Wednesdays to go into supply or ways and means, it is necessary to have a motion. The committee considered also the question as to whether estimates should be referred to a special committee or standing committees of this house. The general question of the structure of house committees was taken into consideration, as well as the question whether or not the rulings made by Mr. Speaker should be subject to appeal. Consideration was given as to whether those who are not limited to time in the length of their speeches should be limited as to time-
I shall read the last paragraph of the report:
Since your committee has thus far been unable to adopt the final report with respect to these proposals, and since other proposals may be forthcoming, your committee recommends that a similar committee be established as soon as possible after

House of Commons
the commencement of the next session to continue the consideration of changes that may be desirable to assure the more expeditious dispatch of public business.


Mr. Fleming:: Mr. Speaker, might it be added to the statement you have given to the house that part I was adopted unanimously by the committee, but part II on division?


Mr. Speaker:: That is correct.


Mr. Knowles:: Perhaps Your Honour could get unanimous consent to have the entire report printed in Hansard?


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house that the full report be printed in Hansard?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The report is as follows:
The select committee appointed on October 9, 1951, to consider, with Mr. Speaker, the procedure of this house for the purpose of suggesting any changes that may be desirable to assure the more expeditious dispatch of public business, begs leave to present its fourth and final report.
Part I.
Your committee recommends that the standing orders of the House of Commons be amended as follows effective on and from the first day of the next session:
(a)	Standing order 2 is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"2. The house shall meet at 2.30 o'clock p.m. on each sitting day except Friday, when the house shall meet at 2 o'clock p.m. If there is not a quorum at the time of meeting, Mr. Speaker may take the chair and adjourn the house."
(b)	Standing order 6 is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"6. (1) At 6 o'clock p.m., except on Wednesday and Friday, Mr. Speaker shall leave the chair until 8 o'clock p.m.
(2)	At 6 o'clock p.m. on Wednesday, Mr. Speaker shall adjourn the house without question put, and the house will stand adjourned until Thursday.
(3)	At 6 o'clock p.m. on Friday, Mr. Speaker shall adjourn the house without question put, and the house will stand adjourned until Monday.
(c)	Standing order 7 is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"7. At 10 o'clock p.m. on Monday, Tuesday and Thursday (unless the closure rule is in operation) the proceedings under consideration will be interrupted, and Mr. Speaker shall adjourn the house without question put. Any proceeding not disposed of at the end of the sitting will stand over until the next sitting day when it will be taken up at the stage at which its progress was interrupted."
(d)	Standing order 15 is amended as follows:
"(i) In paragraph (3), the words '(From eight
to nine o'clock p.m.)' and the words 'Private and public bills, the former having precedence' under the heading 'Tuesday (Government Day)' are deleted and the following substituted therefor: "(From five to six o'clock p.m.) Public and private bills, the former having precedence."
"(ii) In paragraph (3), the words '(From eight to nine o'clock p.m.)' immediately before the words 'Private and public bills' under the heading 'Friday (Government Day)', are deleted and the following substituted therefor: '(From five to six o'clock p.m.)'.''

(iii) Paragraph (4) of standing order 15 is amended by deleting the words "9 o'clock" and substituting the words "6 o'clock."
Part H.
Your committee also recommends that, as an experiment for the next session, unless and until otherwise ordered, standing order 37 be considered as amended by the deletion of the words "forty minutes" as they appear therein and the substitution therefor of the words "thirty minutes," so that standing order 37 would for the duration of the next session have effect as if it were a sessional order reading as follows:
"37. No member, except the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, or a minister moving a government order and the member speaking in reply immediately after such minister, or a member making a motion of "No Confidence" in the government and a minister replying thereto, shall speak for more than thirty minutes at a time in any debate."
Part HI.
Your committee has also given consideration to the following proposals suggested as possible means of expediting the dispatch of public business:
(1)	That when the order of the day is read for the house to go into committee of the whole on a resolution preceding a money bill, Mr. Speaker do leave the chair at once without question put.
(2)	That the practice of announcing in the house that His Excellency the Governor General recommends a money resolution to the consideration of the house be discontinued.
(3)	That whenever on Wednesdays government business has precedence, Mr. Speaker shall leave the chair without question put when the order is read for the house to resolve itself into committee of supply.
(4)	That the estimates be referred to a committee on estimates or to other standing or special committees of the house.
(5)	That the committee structure of the house be re-examined and reorganized.
(6)	That the rulings of Mr. Speaker be made conclusive and not subject to appeal.
(7)	That the speeches of those not now limited as to time in standing order 37 be limited as to time.
Since your committee has thus far been unable to adopt a final report with respect to these proposals, and since other proposals may be forthcoming, your committee recommends that a similar committee be established as soon as possible after the commencement of the next session to continue the consideration of changes that may be desirable to assure the more expeditious dispatch of public business.
Respectfully submitted,
W. Ross Macdonald,
Speaker of the House of Commons, Chairman.


George Alexander Drew: May I ask what the procedure is by which it is proposed to adopt or otherwise deal with this report which has been read?


Hon. Alphonse Fournier (Minister of Public Works):: The moment we go into routine motions I shall move, seconded by the hon. member for Grey-Bruce (Mr. Harris), that by leave of the house we refer it to the committee as a whole, but upon the passing of that motion we would not proceed this day with the study of these changes. If we receive

the unanimous consent of the house we shall be in committee of the whole tomorrow or Saturday. If we do not receive that consent we shall have to put a notice of motion in Votes and Proceedings and it would come up on Saturday.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I think it would be well to put a notice of motion on the order paper, because so far as a great number of the members are concerned this report has just come before us. I may as well say now that there will be a little debate concerning certain features of the matter when it does come up.


Alphonse Fournier: Perhaps we could discuss that on the order for motions because I have a few reasons to give, but if the opposition does not agree we will have to put a notice of motion in Votes and Proceedings.



MOTION FOR REFERENCE OF REPORT TO COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE

Alphonse Fournier: In all cases where substantial amendments to the standing orders of the house have been proposed in the report of a special committee appointed for that purpose, it has been the practice to consider the report in committee of the whole, and when the committee of the whole reports to concur in such report. In most cases when the report of the special committee was presented the motion to consider the report of the committee of the whole was moved without notice, either immediately or at some specified date. Concurrence in the report of the committee of the whole was moved immediately it was received, and in no case was any objection raised to this procedure.
At pages 702 and 703 of Beauchesne's third edition there will be found a Speaker's ruling dealing with a motion for concurrence in a supply resolution, which ruling is to the effect that it does not come within debatable motions under rule 17(a), now standing order No. 38. It is assumed that this would apply equally to motions for sending reports to committee of the whole. Now, the standing orders were amended in 1876, 1906, 1910, 1927 and 1940. What I have just said applies to those previous occasions. I know that I have to ask for unanimous consent of the house, but in moving this motion we have no intention of debating these changes in the standing orders this day. This procedure would just avoid the notice of motion. The tenor of my remarks today would, I believe, be sufficient notice that we intend to bring this matter forward as soon as the delays are over.
I move, therefore, seconded by the hon. member for Grey-Bruce (Mr. Harris):
That the house resolve itself into committee of the whole immediately to consider the report of the 94699-119
House of Commons
select committee appointed on October 9, 1951, for the purpose of suggesting any changes that may be desirable to assure the more expeditious dispatch of public business.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I am as ready as anyone in this house to follow any course that is consistent with the proper dispatch of the business of this house and to expedite the proceedings. On the other hand, I do not intend to let the natural desire of every one of us, to have adequate time before Christmas day to make our own personal arrangements, to interfere in any way with what seems to be the best methods of dealing with business in this house. The suggestions that are before us on the one hand contemplate changes that have not been put in detail before the house in advance of this report, and it is not only the points that are raised but the points that are not raised that may be under consideration. For that reason, recognizing the fact it may well be that there would be some advantage in the members having an extended opportunity to consider this with others, I do not feel I could consent to this motion.


Mr. Speaker:: If there is not unanimous consent, I cannot put the motion.



RADIO BROADCASTING


Mr. W. G. Weir (Portage-Neepawa) moved:: That the name of Mr. Coldwell be substituted for that of Mr. Knowles on the special committee on radio broadcasting.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Hon. Douglas Abboil (Minister of Finance) moved: Inquiries of the Ministry said company to meet such expenditures and with authority to give financial aid and assistance to other companies of the said national system.
He said: His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the consideration of the house.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: That on Saturday, December 15. 1951, and every Saturday thereafter until the end of the session, the hours of sitting and the order of business and procedure shall be the same as on Thursdays.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Arthur Laing (Vancouver South):: wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Will he please bring us up to date on the question of registrations under the Old Age Security Act?


Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I may say that the progress which I noted in the number of registrations a few days ago has been continued. There are over 340,000 applications that have come in, in addition to those already on the old age pension rolls, and which are being transferred from provincial to federal lists. To summarize my statement I think I should say that over 92 per cent of the expected total are in seven weeks before the date of payment.



NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, on November 27 I directed a question to the Prime Minister, as reported at page 1356 of Hansard, in connection with our commitments under NATO. On that occasion the Prime Minister said:
I shall have to take that question as a notice. The hon. member will appreciate that I shall have to communicate with the NATO council because it is understood that any information about their decisions has to be authorized by the council. I shall be glad to make available to the house all the information that can be published.
'Mr. Abbott.)

I would ask the Prime Minister if he is now in a position to inform us with regard to the extent and the nature of the commitments under NATO.
Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime
Minister): No, I am not, Mr. Speaker. I communicated immediately with our high commissioner in London who is the Canadian member of the council of deputies. I was informed by him that no information in that regard had been authorized to be published by the council and that the understanding was that none of the members would give any of that information without the general consent of the group. I can add that there have not yet been any definite commitments with respect to the expenditure which will have to be made for the purposes of what was referred to, I think, in the hon. gentleman's question, as the infrastructure or at least what is generally described as the infrastructure. That matter is still under consideration, and there has as yet been no determination as to the definite portion of the expenditure each of the members of NATO would have to assume. This is also a matter which is connected with the report that is to be considered, I think it is tomorrow, in Paris, by what is known as the T.C.C.


Douglas Charles Abbott: The draft report.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Yes, the draft report. The temporary council committee has that matter before it tomorrow, and I would assume that after this report has been made public it will be much easier to have all the members of the council agree upon the extent of further information that can be made public.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. It relates to a series of three articles which appeared on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday in the Montreal Herald, in regard to our radar screen. It would seem that the articles are of a factual nature and they give sufficient detail to require that some explanation should be given to us as to whether they accurately interpret the real state of our radar screen in this country today. I would ask the minister if he is prepared to give us some explanation of the situation, having regard to what those articles have stated.


Hon. Brooke Claxion (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I have not seen the

articles and I should think that any explanation of them should be made by the publisher. I will be glad, however, to see if anything should be added.


George Alexander Drew: As to the latter part of that remark, Mr. Speaker, to the effect that the minister has not seen the articles, that is of course an effective answer to any suggestion that he should answer at this time. But when he reads the articles I am sure he will realize that they are of such a nature that they do not leave the responsibility on the publisher to give an explanation. Either they are correct or they are not. If they are correct, an explanation is owing to this house.


Brooke Claxton: I will be glad to look at the articles.



AVAILABILITY OF ELEVATOR SPACE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Is he in a position to give a further report in connection with the availability of elevator space for wheat on the prairies? Is he able to say whether anything will be done by the wheat board to provide additional drying facilities for the damp wheat that is on the prairies? In particular, what is the situation now with regard to the allocation of cars in those areas that up to now have had a shortage?


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: The movement of grain,
particularly during the past thirty days, has been very favourable indeed. We have succeeded in getting the insurance period for shipping on the great lakes extended, and grain is still moving down the lakes at a time during which navigation is normally closed. This has improved space in the terminals at the lakehead. Stocks are down to about 32 million bushels at the moment, and grain is moving forward from the country in volume that is unusual for this time of the year, and will continue to do so for a period.
Some three weeks ago orders were put out that the railroads should concentrate on points where the congestion has been chronic for some time. That has been done, and I think there are very few points on the prairies that have not had a fair movement of grain. If there are such points at the moment they will receive immediate attention from the transport controller.
94699-119J
Inquiries of the Ministry
The problem of tough and damp grain is more serious this year even than last year. We were able to deal with the situation last year without any loss of grain through spoilage. This year the problem is much more difficult. It is being met in part by marketing tough grain as tough grain, which we have been able to do in a few countries, and we are concentrating on the drying of damp grain. It is impossible to bring in new drying equipment for terminal elevators which would be effective this year. We have looked into that, and by the time the driers are manufactured and installed the season will be over. So far as we can foresee I doubt whether there will be any addition to the drying capacity, but I can assure my hon. friend that the drying capacity is being used to the limit and will continue to be so used until the damp grain is disposed of.



AUDIBILITY OF DEBATE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. J. Browne (St. John's West):: 1
should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. What progress has been made with the design, construction and installation of a microphone system in the house?


Alphonse Fournier: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether I should give a report-


Some hon. Members:: Louder.


Alphonse Fournier: This matter comes
under the jurisdiction of His Honour the Speaker. I will not hesitate to give a report very shortly-


Mr. Speaker:: If I may interrupt the
minister, I should like to assure him that, along with other hon. members, I also would like to hear a report.


Alphonse Fournier: As Your Honour
knows, this has been a very long-drawn-out question in the House of Commons. We have not yet reached unanimity amongst hon. members, but we are-


Some hon. Members:: In what way?


Alphonse Fournier: Well, some of them
would like to remain in statu quo; while others would like to have some system. Our difficulty is trying to test a system. There are so many opinions as to what system should be tried out in the House of Commons that I spend hours myself thinking over which system I would approve of. But the report made by Mr. Speaker last session.

Inquiries of the Ministry from the committee which sat on the question, recommended that we instal here a system similar to the one which is in the United Kingdom parliament buildings at Westminster. After that report, which was agreed to by the house, we did get in contact with the representatives of the Tannoy company of Britain. They have the specifications of the system over there, and we are trying to negotiate an agreement or a contract with them under which they would instal that system here, maintain it in a good state of repair and operate it. That is the way they have proceeded in the British House of Commons, but as yet an agreement has not been signed.
The public knows that there is no other firm in our country that could instal a similar system-and I have looked up the dictionary to find out what the word "similar" means-* and that could make a bid or an offer to the department to instal that system, unless they secure from us the specifications of that system in Britain. We have not those specifications, and I do not think I should send an expert over to Britain to get the specifications without an assurance that we would get them, because they belong to that company.
These negotiations are going on and we really hope that some day they will sign the agreement, and proceed to instal the system. I cannot go any further than that.


Mr. Graydon:: May I ask the minister one question? After the agreement has been executed, how long does the minister think it will take to have the system in operation in the house?


Alphonse Fournier: I believe that it would still take some time because they would have to do all the work of installing the system, and have their own people to operate and maintain it. We propose to lease the system from that company, not purchase it, because we would not have the people to operate it or maintain it. In the agreement we are trying to lease that system so that we would not have trouble. If any trouble arose Mr. Speaker would attend to it with those who were working on the console or at the table.


Mr. Coldwell:: Is there any correspondence in relation to this matter that could be placed before the house? Many of us were under the impression that the recommendation made last session was to be implemented, and many of us would like to know just what is holding up this matter. Is there any correspondence in relation to it?


Alphonse Fournier: I know the hon.
gentleman is right. We are supposed to implement the system, but it takes two parties to do that.


Major James William Coldwell: I know.


Alphonse Fournier: It takes two parties to agree before we can get this agreement signed with that company. I cannot- say when it will be signed. It is a complicated agreement that has been prepared. I will look into the file and if there is correspondence I will certainly table the documents.


George Alexander Drew: May I suggest for the assistance of the Minister of Public Works that it is not necessary for him to send someone over to England to get the specifications. Canada House is reasonably well staffed with a competent staff-


Alphonse Fournier: Not with engineers.


George Alexander Drew: It should be possible for them to approach the appropriate officials over there to obtain the specifications. May I say in the most friendly way, because the minister is always so genial, that what he has just done is strangely reminiscent of that term used so often by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) as a diversionary activity.


Alphonse Fournier: Perhaps I am under a false impression, Mr. Speaker, but when a company devises plans and specifications I cannot see how the government can request them to furnish us with those plans or specifications. That is why we are dealing with the company. If they were general specifications we would ask for tenders, but I remind the house that in the past we did ask for tenders for a system here and there were six tenders, if I recall correctly, and we chose the lowest tender, and then we had to drop that because many people were not satisfied with the system proposed. Then Mr. Speaker went to Britain and made a report himself concerning that system.


Mr. Adamson:: I just want to say that I was a member of the committee that sat' and discussed this matter. During the sittings a transatlantic telephone conversation took place between the chief architect of the department and the company, and the intimation was to the effect that the work could be started within a period of between four and six months. As a matter of fact, I was rather surprised that it had not been installed for this session.

:**	DECEMBER 13, 1951
[Later :1


Mr. J. H. Ferguson (Simcoe Norlh):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier) what person or persons in his department is or are responsible for the installation of a loud-speaker system in the House of Commons, and whether we may expect it at an early date?



CIGARETTES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. B. Huffman (Kent, Onl.):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Is he aware of complaints by retail tobacconists that the cigarette manufacturers are rationing popular brands of cigarettes and so creating shortages of supply? If so, what action does the minister propose to take to assure a proper supply of good Canadian cigarettes?


An hon. Member:: Roll your own.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, I think this is somewhat outside the duties of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I have heard there is a shortage of popular brands of cigarettes in the stores, but I have made no investigation in the matter. I cannot give a statement as to what can be done about it. I understand we are not very popular with the manufacturers of cigarettes; and perhaps they are trying to bring to the attention of the public the suggestion that the situation is not good. However, I shall be glad to look into the matter.



DEFENCE CONTRACTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell) on Monday, December 10, asked a question as to the total defence purchases in Canada by the United States and the total purchases by Canada in the United States. I have a report here which I would be glad to send to him, or to table, whichever he would prefer.
However, the short answer is that official orders placed by the government of Canada in the United States amount to $502,739,872, whereas orders placed officially with Canada through the Canadian Commercial Corporation, by the United States, amount to $158,123,147. The memorandum which accompanies this information points out that the
Inquiries of the Ministry reason for this is that the Canadian purchases were made off the shelf on articles immediately required to equip our troops pursuant to the decision to equip with Canadian types. Whereas, orders placed by the United States are, in part, token orders to provide for tooling, with the understanding that those orders will be followed by production orders when tooling is completed.
I might add that the department is not unhappy about a situation which, on the basis of firm orders placed, seems to be very much out of balance.


Mr. J. M. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, the minister said the other day that the figure he has just given would be merely for government purchases. Is he in a position to estimate whether the disappointing disparity, which he has partly explained, would be made up in any way by private orders; or has the minister no knowledge whatever of those?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I have some knowledge of them, I know of substantial orders which have been placed, more particularly by American companies with their Canadian subsidiaries. I know of very substantial orders, but I have no knowledge of the total amount of those orders. I could only guess that they would amount to fully as much as the business that has been placed through Canadian Commercial Corporation. I would say it would be, perhaps, another $150 million.



TRANSPORT COMMISSIONERS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Transport. Will the vacancy on the board of transport commissioners resulting from the resignation of Mr. W. J. Patterson be filled at an early date? Is it the intention of the government to appoint a western Canadian to this vacancy?


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I am not in a position to say when the vacancy on the board of transport commissioners will be filled, or from what part of Canada the incumbent will come. But when the decision is taken the government will announce it.



CIVIL SERVICE

[Stage Direction]
DECEMBER 24 AND 31-QUESTION AS TO HOLIDAY;
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Secretary of State (Mr. Bradley) I should like to ask a question of the Prime Minister. Can
1864	HOUSE OF
Canadian Broadcasting Act the Prime Minister say whether the announcement made by the Secretary of State on December 5 to the effect that Monday, December 24, and Monday, December 31, will be observed as civil service holidays, under certain considerations, applies to prevailing rate employees such as the staff at the printing bureau?
Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime
Minister): Mr. Speaker, 1 shall have to inquire into that. I am not in a position to say just how it will apply in the various services. It is something that, in a general way, is left to the discretion of the deputy ministers, to see that the essential public services are not interfered with by the manner in which these holidays are taken and observed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Perhaps the Prime Minister would answer later.


Mr. Si. Laurent:: I shall make inquiry about the conditions in connection with the prevailing rate employees. But I would imagine there would be differences with respect to them, as necessarily there will be differences with respect to the classified civil servants.



INQUIRY FOR RETURN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Solon E. Low (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of National Defence. On Monday, December 3, a question standing in my name was passed as an order for return. Would the minister make an effort to get that information to me before the session closes?


Brooke Claxton: Yes, indeed.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Wednesday, December 12, consideration in committee of Bill No. 17, to amend the Canadian Broadcasting Act, 1936-Mr. McCann-Mr. Dion in the chair.
On section 1-"Minister".
Mr. Herridge:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to make some observations. First of all, let me say I support wholeheartedly the point of view expressed yesterday by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar. Owing to the lateness of the session I shall not take the time to make any lengthy observations such as otherwise I would have made.
[Mr. 1

I must say, however, that my correspondence, and contacts I have with large numbers of people in my constituency, indicate a keen interest in this bill, and a general interest in the operations of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Correspondence I have received recently, as a result of study of the measure by the committee, shows that there is a general appreciation of the services rendered by the C.B.C., and the work it is trying to do. Therefore I am safe in saying that there is general support from people in all parts of my constituency, so far as the work of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is concerned.
In a constituency such as that of Kootenay West, there are many who to a great extent depend upon radio for their entertainment. They live in isolated mining communities and logging camps. Among their number are prospectors, trappers and the like. On more than one occasion I have visited trappers at elevations of 5,000 or 6,000 feet, living at perhaps a distance of twenty-five miles from a neighbour. They have told me how much they appreciate receiving the C.B.C. news and other features of the corporation, when they can tune it in.
Those people working in the hills, in the mines, on the traplines and as prospectors, as well as those in the lumber camps, are entitled to receive more consideration because of the work they are doing and also because of their isolation. They are performing an important service for the benefit of the country in isolated places.
I now take advantage of this opportunity to raise a question I have brought to the attention of the house on several earlier occasions, and that was brought to the attention of the committee which sat prior to the one the sittings of which have just concluded. I wish to say that the concern of many listeners in both Kootenay West and Kootenay East is that better facilities be provided so that they may hear C.B.C. programs at all times. I have received a number of letters recently about this matter which no doubt were stimulated by the investigation into this bill by the committee, and I have had the matter brought to my attention by a good number of organizations from time to time.
There are two local stations in the area. The station at Trail is an excellent community station and I understand last year it gave something in the neighbourhood of $20,000 worth of free time to the community it serves. There is another station at Nelson about which I used to receive many complaints. In fairness to that station I must say that it has improved its services. These two stations are low in power and, generally
Knowles.]

speaking, can only be depended upon to serve a limited area. A large number of the people in the northern sections of the Kootenays and in the isolated valleys are dependent to a great extent upon United States stations for their entertainment and news. This poor reception, most likely caused by the topography of the country, is particularly bad after nightfall. We are able to get some C.B.C. programs during the daytime from Trail, Kelowna, at times from Calgary and Vancouver, but after dark we are completely isolated from Canadian programs and must depend upon the United States stations.
As one who lives in the backwoods miles away from his neighbours I do not like to have to listen to the news according to Sperry's pancake flour, when other people are getting measured and objective news reports from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. I think the manner in which news broadcasts are given by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is indicative of our national temperament and lack of hysteria in times of crisis. Repeatedly, people in my constituency as well as visitors have told me that they have been impressed by the objective reporting of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. As I say, many people have asked why something cannot be done to provide them with an opportunity of hearing our own Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.
I am of the opinion that the general manager of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has some knowledge of my constituency, but officials in various departments have been inclined to look upon the Kootenays as being somewhat in the backwoods and possessing only a small population. Whatever their views may have been in the past, that situation has changed. The Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company are spending over $30 million on new developments. The mines in the area are spending another $10 million on new developments. Another $5 million is being spent on transportation and power facilities. Millions of dollars have been invested in saw mills and it is anticipated that an investment of over $70 million will be made within the next year or two in a pulp and paper industry.
All this means a great production of wealth and a large payment of taxes. According to Business Week, the Kootenays pay the largest amount of taxes per capita of any constituency with the exception of Westmount in Montreal. There will be an increased number of people working for the mines, the smelters, the lumbering industry and the future pulp and paper industry. I am making an appeal that something be done for the people of the southern interior of British
Canadian Broadcasting Act Columbia in order that they may be able to hear the programs of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.
I am not a radio technician, in fact my mechanical ability is almost limited to oiling a wheel barrow, but people who know something about it tell me that we are not going to have satisfactory reception in the interior of British Columbia until a powerful station is located at Kamloops or at some other interior point. On occasion we can hear the Watrous, Saskatchewan station, which is a powerful station, and I am sure that it will require something of that nature to provide better service for the southern interior of British Columbia. I make this appeal to the minister and officials of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and urge they give consideration to this matter that has concerned so many people in Kootenay West and East for several years, and by so doing, recognize their needs and provide the proper service to that great and important part of this country.


Mr. Dinsdale:: Mr. Chairman, notwithstanding the lateness of the session and the desire of many hon. members to bring it to a rapid conclusion in order to get home for Christmas I cannot resist the opportunity to say a few words on this important matter. It was my privilege to serve on the special committee on broadcasting, and as a new member who has been subjected to many experiences during the past few weeks, I must say that was the most stimulating and interesting experience of all. I have been interested in broadcasting, although perhaps not from the technical standpoint, for some time, and to come to grips with the concrete problems which face Canada in connection with this important matter was, as I say, a most stimulating experience.
I consider it most unfortunate that we should be pressed for time when we are considering this important subject. It seems to me that the whole field of broadcasting requires the maximum time for discussion so that we may clarify some of the confused thinking that obviously is present at the moment. As I took part in the discussions of the special committee I became increasingly aware of that confused thinking.
I consider this a most important topic because of the significance of radio broadcasting as a medium of communication in our complex civilization. Anything that plays a part in the communicating of ideas is significant. As has been the case with many other technological inventions and improvements, the attitude toward radio has been that it is a sort of panacea which will provide a
1866	HOUSE OF
Canadian Broadcasting Act universal solution for all our ills. The feeling seems to be that all you have to do in order to straighten out any problem is to organize broadcasting in the right style, put it on the proper basis and everything will be well.
It was so with newspapers when they first appeared on the scene. It was thought that with the advent of the modern press the problems of democracy would be solved because there would be provided an excellent medium through which public opinion could be moulded. Above all, in a democracy we must be aware of public opinion.
The first bright hopes have been dimmed as we witnessed the increasing power of the. yellow press in the hands of such journalists as William Randolph Hearst and Mr. McCormick of Chicago. This has tended to suggest that all is not sweetness and light so far as the use of this important medium is concerned.
I remember being involved in a debate as a young high school student on that old perennial subject of whether the pen is more powerful than the sword. I went around to all my fellow students and asked them if they read the editorial page, and did not get one affirmative response. That seemed to impress the judges because they awarded the verdict to our side. We were, incidentally, supporting "the sword".
Radio is somewhat different from the press. Radio deals with the spoken word, and the spoken word or oral tradition is more impressive in its effect than the written word. For example, the late President Roosevelt was able to exercise his tremendous influence on the people of the United States, notwithstanding the opposition of a good part of the press, because of his magnificent radio technique as demonstrated in the famous fireside chats. He could ooze through the ether right into the home. His ability in this regard was as significant as anything else in maintaining his influence in the United States.
We are well aware today, amidst the babel and confusion of voices, that the broadcasting medium is very important. I think perhaps here is where a good deal of the confusion arises in our thinking. There have been charges of blasphemous and indecent broadcasts and other kinds of nefarious activities over the C.B.C. during the present discussion. I think this partly arises from the fact that radio has come upon the scene very rapidly. Only yesterday the fiftieth anniversary of the first radio or wireless broadcast and reception was observed. I refer [Mr. Dinsdale.l

to the occasion when Marconi received the signal "S" across the north Atlantic. Radio has arrived on the scene very quickly and has developed rapidly as an accomplished technique just at a time of great social change and upheaval. Its significance in guiding and influencing human affairs of course has now become obvious. It was used with great effect under the nazi regime in Germany and the present communist regime in Russia. Therefore we who cherish freedom of speech and the other freedoms are very sensitive concerning the possibilities of the harmful influence of radio at the present time.
I have tried to be objective in this matter as I endeavoured to be objective in all the deliberations of the committee. I have looked through the scripts which were mentioned particularly and which were tabled for the members of the committee. I read carefully the speeches of Dr. Brock Chisholm, Mr. Bertrand Russell, Dr. Line, Dr. Hoyle, and so forth. This is not the first time I have encountered these gentlemen because they are standard fare on our university curricula. I recall making a feeble protest on the committee that one of the basic principles of academic freedom is that no restrictions be imposed with respect to the discussion of ideas. Perhaps I do not have to say this, but my own background so far as religion is concerned is of the fundamentalist variety. I deliberately projected myself into a study of the social sciences because I was somewhat alarmed from a layman's standpoint at a few of the ideas that were circulating. I wondered exactly what was involved in the new schools of thought that are growing up, particularly with reference to psychology, sociology, psychiatry and the social sciences generally.
As for Brock Chisholm, he is rather an extremist in the field, and I do not think he has been too influential since he became involved in the Santa Claus discussion some few years ago. Most hon. members will recall that he tried to criticize Father Christmas and stirred up a great tempest in a teapot as a result of carrying the Freudian idea somewhat too far. I was very interested in Bertrand Russell because back in the thirties he preached doctrines that were rather contrary to the best interests of the family, our basic unit of society. Bertrand Russell is a great mathematician and also somewhat of a philosopher. I think his line of thought has been practically discredited in the mind of anybody who has followed his ideas carefully because he is still a social evolutionist, and social evolution went down the drain

Canadian Broadcasting Act
with the advent of world war I, world-wide depression, world war II and the difficulties that have since arisen.
With respect to Dr. Line, I believe he is connected with the university of Toronto. I think I can highlight the approach that he takes by referring to a little incident that occurred to me personally. I met a student from the department of psychology of the university of Toronto who was a great zealot for the mental hygiene movement. The mental hygiene movement is doing a very effective job in solving one of our major social problems, the problem of increasing mental illness. But like all new things these men who come up with new ideas and new formulas go off the deep end and begin to feel that their particular idea is the supreme good for which man has been looking all through the long centuries of his upward quest. This student was most enthusiastic about the beneficial effects of the mental hygiene movement. He said: "If I could only go across the nation in a great crusade and tell everybody about mental hygiene I am sure that a good many of society's difficulties' would melt away". I said to him: "You sound almost like a religious fanatic in your enthusiasm for mental hygiene. You are attributing to the psychologist all the attributes of the Godhead, omniscience, omnipresence and so forth". He drew himself up very haughtily and said: "Are you not postulating God?" I think that is significant. I think it gets to the heart of the controversy in the struggle of ideas that is going on, the struggle of various ideologies for men's minds and souls during the disturbing times in which we are now living.
The farther I went in these respective fields of knowledge the more I realized their inadequacy and the more I realized that fundamental Christianity in the long run is big enough to smother and absorb any seeming inspiration or new viewpoint that might emerge out of these more scientific discussions. I do not think we need to be afraid of anything of that kind as long as we have a basic Christian philosophy, and as long as we endeavour to grasp the heights, depths and breadth of the wisdom that is involved in the Christian idea which underlies our western way of life.
If there is any danger at all from the threat of new ideologies I think it is because we have perhaps narrowed down our appreciation of Christianity to such an extent that it is not big enough to absorb the competition from these other ideas.
I would say something about the last script of Professor Hoyle's which was
definitely atheistic. I am in receipt of a communication from the Student Christian Movement which, while supporting the right of freedom of expression, makes this reservation:
We would, however, lay before you an additional request. It is true that while the broadcast in question did not deal in an explicit way with religion, some of them did proceed from assumptions that are antithetical to the religious and, more particularly, the Christian understanding of the universe and of human nature. While we would deplore any limiting of the freedom of expression of such points of view, we would, at the same time, request the C.B.C. to make provision for the presentation of the Christian position in broadcasts of as high a calibre as those being called in question.


Major James William Coldwell: Was that not done with regard to Dr. Hoyle's broadcast?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I think it was. I merely present that statement for the record. My viewpoint is very much the same as that presented in the communication from the Student Christian Movement. I feel that Dr. Hoyle's discussion was not relevant to the main theme that was established in these psychological broadcasts, and it is perhaps unfortunate that it was included in the series. However, I am not fearful for the ideological or spiritual well-being of Canadians so long as we can press home the basic facts of our own Christian viewpoint.
The difficulty is, of course, that we are all somewhat egocentric, and we look at the world from our own particular viewpoint. It reminds me of the elderly couple who were discussing the world as they saw it, and the gentleman said to his wife, "You know, sometimes I think that everybody in the world is a bit queer except you and me, and sometimes I think even you are a bit queer". I believe that is at the root of this problem of failing to appreciate the other viewpoint.
In our discussions in the special committee we were mainly guided by the report of the Massey commission. This commission has done a magnificent job for the advancement of arts and sciences in Canada. But sometimes I am persuaded to think the commission is a bit idealistic in its approach-and perhaps we need more idealism. It seems to support the notion that radio can be the panacea and solve all our difficulties if we only handle it correctly. I agree with the commission's criticism that the springs of culture are changing from the universities and the church and are now lodged in Hollywood and the radio and other mechanized means of communication. It is important that both of these sources of information, these sources of publication and communication, should cater to a higher level than that to which they have tended to cater when they are

Canadian Broadcasting Act
operating on a strictly commercialized basis. Hence the reason why I am basically in support of an institution such as the C.B.C.
But I do not think we are going to see any great upsurge in cultural interests as the result of that emphasis in radio broadcasting. It will be gradual, and I can agree with the Massey commission that we must move in that direction. I see no immediate possibility, however, of establishing a nation of highbrows, particularly in some of the outlying regions of this vast country of ours. I repeat that there is no technological solution, there is no technological panacea for the problems that are besetting our western way of life, both social and political. Today there is no simple, easy formula that will come to grips with all these difficulties.
We come now to the problem of broadcasting regulation which was a very controversial matter in the committee discussions. In order to present my viewpoint, I feel I shall have to refer briefly to the situation in the United States. I have pointed out that radio broadcasting there developed quickly and in a haphazard fashion. For example, I am told that from 1922 on, the popularity of radio spread like wildfire simultaneously in all countries. In the United States 90 per cent of the families in the northern states own one or more radios. Canada had over a million licensed sets in 1945, which was an increase of 450 per cent over 1934. Figures are similar for other countries.
There have been, perhaps, three distinct periods in the development of radio. As I say the development has been haphazard and without any direction, because it was an invention which appeared so suddenly. First of all, there was the novelty period from 1919 to 1922. Then it was regarded as a profit rainbow from 1922 to 1926, when the advantages of commercialization were seen. Then it had a period of adolescence from 1926 to 1936, when it came into competition with the newspaper advertising. Finally, it achieved success and became more or less established from 1936 onward. By then radio had stopped apologizing, and was a well-organized entity with a definite character. Radio advertising had gotten away from its earlier, primitive forms and had tended to become somewhat of an art, although we must confess there are still some of these primitive forms surviving, unfortunately. We have heard references to them during these discussions on broadcasting. No doubt a good deal of the experience of the United States in radio broadcasting has been that of perpetuating mediocrity. As we listen to the emotional contortions of the soap operas,
[Mr. Dinsdale.J
which is one of the frequent forms of program heard on the United States airwaves, some of us feel that radio broadcasting is far from being a mature medium.
It was the reaction to that sort of haphazard and uncontrolled development, when even too many channels were allotted to private broadcasting in the United States, that led to the B.B.C. complete state monopoly. Canada began to consider the problem back in 1929, and it was strongly influenced by both the United States experience and by the B.B.C. experience. During our discussions in the committee, I could not help but come to the conclusion that circumstances in broadcasting have changed rather remarkably since the Aird commission first made its report. At that time the conception was that broadcasting was a state monopoly, and there would be no private operators. Notwithstanding that fact, there are today 135 private radio operators in Canada. Admittedly they have all made a real contribution to radio broadcasting in this country. I have not stopped to examine why private broadcasting continued to survive, but no doubt it is due to the geographic nature of Canada. Notwithstanding the original intent of the Aird commission, we do have private broadcasting, and especially at the local community level it is doing a particularly fine job. It was obvious, as we listened to the private broadcasters' brief, that they are dissatisfied with the present arrangements for broadcasting in Canada.
It seems to me that the time has come when we might rethink and reformulate our attitude toward private broadcasting or toward broadcasting generally on the lines of some of the recommendations that have been made by the Canadian Association of Broadcasters. The press is taking up this theme. The Winnipeg Free Press has recently taken up the theme rather strenuously and is suggesting that some rethinking be done with regard to the basic philosophy towards broadcasting. I have here in my hand a clipping from the Winnipeg Free Press. Perhaps it would help if I were to put it on the record. It reads in part as follows:
For years the case for monopoly in broadcasting seemed overwhelming. So far as the layman was concerned it rested on technical arguments that a monopoly was inevitable, or if not inevitable, at least highly desirable. In Canada the threat ol Americanization through programs "piped in" tc Canada was also a very powerful factor.
It is, in fact, a very considerable tribute to the power of the idea of private enterprise in radio, diversification and independence, that in spite of the Aird commission proposal to close up or take over all private stations, and subsequent parliamentary studies strongly favouring the C.B.C., these private

stations have grown steadily in number and in revenue, which in turn reflects increased listening by the Canadian public.
The report goes on to indicate that as radio has grown up, as it has matured, as it has grown from a haphazard uncontrolled stage of development, we are beginning to alter our attitude towards radio broadcasting and are wondering whether under the present set-up we are not violating fundamental principles of freedom of expression.
This thought leads to the suggestion that has been put forward, not only during the present discussion but on former occasions, as to the desirability of an independent regulatory body or the other suggestion that has been put forward during these discussions, namely, that some sort of a joint planning committee might be arranged whereby there could be direct, constant, continuing liaison between the C.B.C. and the C.A.B. I am getting away from the terms of the present bill, but every time this subject is discussed and every time briefs are presented I think it is obvious that there is great agitation for development of this kind, and it would seem high time that some attention was given to these requests.
I was greatly impressed by one of the closing statements made by the chairman of the board of governors of the C.B.C., Mr. Dunton, when he said something to the effect that he hoped that parliament would define the radio broadcasting situation in Canada in sufficiently clear terms so that those engaged in the practical problems of broadcasting could get on with those practical problems, so that a state of relative stability would be established, making it unnecessary to be dealing constantly with those problems that have been emerging, particularly since 1936, the date I gave for the emergence of maturity in radio broadcasting.
I do not want to speak much longer, but I believe these are basic issues. The very fact that they are being discussed so frequently in the newspapers across the country and the very fact that they come up for discussion in the regular meetings of the committee on broadcasting indicate that they are real problems which must be faced constructively and directly in the near future.
I do not want to get launched into a general discussion of the problem of freedom of expression because that is a job for lawyers, and I will leave it to them. It is a topic however that should figure prominently in this debate.
In concluding, I might say just a word with regard to the licence fee. This matter was discussed in the committee and the impression
Canadian Broadcasting Act I received was that the problem of licensing radio receiving stations had become so difficult that it was hardly any longer a profitable venture. Recommendations were made by the C.A.B. and by some of the members that the licence fee might well be dispensed with. For example, we heard charges that the collection of the licence fee lent itself to techniques of racketeering, where unqualified licence sellers would approach unsuspecting householders and ask if they had bought their licences-of course, nobody ever knows whether or not he has a licence; I myself cannot remember. Because of the fear of being prosecuted, the householder would immediately buy a licence, whether he had one or not. That was one difficulty brought out. On the other hand it was pointed out that there are a large number of citizens who are never successfully apprehended and forced to pay their licence fee. I have here a quotation from the Globe and Mail of November 5, which outlines the situation in Toronto as follows:
It was announced recently that nearly 450 people were being prosecuted in the Toronto area alone, and that since last July, 1,800 delinquent owners who had failed to buy the 1951 licence had been found by house-to-house canvassing in this district by government inspectors.
If we got to the bottom of the problem, it might even be found that there would be in this chamber confessions similar to the one we heard recently with regard to smuggling, and that even some of the hon. members of this assembly are not in possession of their radio licences.
Most of the matters that I have discussed this morning are not up for review in the bill before us at the present time. But as one who had the privilege of serving on this committee, Mr. Chairman, I felt constrained to deal with them and to present, as briefly as possible, my own reaction to the situation.


Mr. Blackmore:: Mr. Chairman, before this item passes I feel that I should say something along the line that was being followed by the hon. member for Macleod last night. The privilege of speaking over the C.B.C. is in some respects almost a sacred one. Only those who are entirely worthy should have that privilege. I am not sure that Mr. Brock Chisholm, who was under discussion for a short time last night, has qualified himself for that opportunity. I should like to quote three passages from his speech delivered on September 5, 1951, and to comment upon those passages briefly, bearing in mind that Canada is first and foremost a Christian country. I doubt if you can find anywhere in the world more devout Christians than the splendid people who speak French in Canada. I know that great numbers of the people who speak
1870	HOUSE OF
Canadian Broadcasting Act English in Canada are likewise devout in high degree. I believe that these people have a right to have their preferences respected. Having said that, may I read the passages I have in mind?
Third, the experts would need to be identified as modern experts, not hereditary or traditional ones, who would advise on the basis of obsolete concepts, on long-past certainties which they had learned in their childhoods from their ancestors' ideas.
Mr. Chisholm may not have meant anything subversive by these remarks, but being unqualified as they are, they are open to the most adverse interpretations. What is the interpretation that would naturally be placed upon this passage by anyone who had studied modern science in our schools? Would it not be something like this? "Well, we really should not pay very much attention now to such figures as Moses. He is clearly out of date, obsolete. And that man, David, who wrote the Psalms-we cannot give very much attention to his ideas! And that Isaiah would be definitely a second rater or third rater! And the Saviour of the world would be one of those antiquated experts!" Look at what it means!
And that kind of doctrine is poured into the ears of our unsuspecting boys and girls of teen-age, unsuspecting and defenceless! They have the right to expect that anything that comes over the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is of the very highest validity and respectability. Well, listen to that! That is a matter which cannot be treated lightly.
May I read another passage from the same speech? This includes some of the words that the hon. member for Macleod read last night, but I wish to get another passage in the context, so I shall have to read it again:
The rate of increase in world population has jumped to about 68,000 a day. Are you among the hundreds of millions of people who are avoiding this frightening fact?
"Avoiding"; what does that mean? I continue:
Are you among those whose opinion, based on some authoritarian prejudice, prevents delegates to the United Nations bodies, even the population commission, from tackling this problem?
"Tackling it". By, for example, making a world law under which people shall be restricted in the matter of their increase, and probably sterilized after a certain number of children? How does that sound to the devout members from Quebec? I continue:
Do you think you will be left plenty of room, in North America for instance, when within a few years, hundreds of millions of people from Asia and Europe must go somewhere if their birth rate remains anywhere near its present level?


What is the implication of that? The speech goes on:
Yes, we can avoid this question but our children will pay for our cowardice if we do. These are only illustrations of our need to know ourselves.


Solon Earl Low: Pretty subtle.


John Horne Blackmore: Without qualifications the implication of that is just as clear as the moon in a cloudless midnight sky. Obviously he is indoctrinating in favour of birth control.


Solon Earl Low: And the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation pays him for it.


John Horne Blackmore: And we pay the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is against regulations.


John Horne Blackmore: See how serious that is. This man, in advocating birth control, of course would have no concern-I hope I am not unfair; I want to be fair-but he apparently is not concerned at all about what the Creator of the earth thought about this matter of birth control. May I read into the record what God said in Genesis, chapter 1, verses 27 and 28. I read as follows:
27.	So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
28.	And God blessed them, and God said unto them. Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
Apparently God was not much worried about those "hundreds of millions" who would come sweeping over us. Probably Mr. Chisholm has never read the 127th psalm, commencing with the third verse. I will read it into the record so that his friends can point it out to him:
3.	Lo, children are an heritage of the Lord: and the fruit of the womb is his reward.
4.	As arrows are in the hand of a mighty man; so are children of the youth.
5.	Happy is the man that hath his quiver full of them: they shall not be ashamed, but they shall speak with the enemies in the gate.
There are serious implications to all this, Mr. Chairman. It just happens that the main people in the world who are foolish enough to listen to the doctrine of birth control are the English-speaking people. Now they are limiting their children while the potential enemy is multiplying abundantly. And what is the meaning? Given several generations, and the English-speaking people will not "speak with the enemies in the gate."


Solon Earl Low: Hear, hear. They will get down on their knees and plead for mercy.


John Horne Blackmore: They will be lucky if they are alive. I do not wish to go too deeply into

this whole matter. I am tempted to say something even further. I believe I will read the next passage, but before I do that may I say in passing, Mr. Chairman, that we need to bear in mind that the greatgrandfathers of the men in this House of Commons had families of eight, ten, twelve and fourteen children, while the men in this house-I do not wish to mention any of them at all- are lucky if they have three and two and one. What is the reason, in a time when we can make maternity almost painless and astonishingly safe, when we know more about nourishing people than man ever knew, when we can provide more nutritious food of greater varieties than any generation that has ever lived, why is it that today our families are two and three? What has brought this thing about?
Mr. Chairman, I will dare wager that there has been through the years an indoctrination by the men who drafted the patterns that Brock Chisholm is pouring out in the ears of Canadian people, doctrines that originated mor'e than a hundred years ago. That indoctrination has little by little borne fruit, until now only those who have the most implicit faith in the Bible have families of substantial size.
Let us remember once again that we fight enemies with manpower. We produce goods to fight enemies with manpower. We raise goods to fight inflation with manpower. Manpower, the fountain of our manpower, is being dried up at its source. How? By men like Brock Chisholm. It is bad enough for people to steal around on the streets, to meet women on the corners and to talk contraception and birth control. But to have a man free to pour that doctrine premeditatedly over the airways of the C.B.C. is a monstrosity which strikes me almost petrified with amazement. A person like me stands completely astounded when I see that the C.B.C. would even tolerate a thing like that.


Solon Earl Low: Let alone take our tax money to pay for it.


John Horne Blackmore: But there it is. It was done-and no doubt it was done in other broadcasts. And it was done directly against the will of eighty per cent of the people of Canada, I wager.
We talk about having public control of the C.B.C. We see men rising in the house and saying that the C.B.C. should be able to control all our radio broadcasting. Well, to answer such a foolhardy argument one needs no more than that illustration, does he? And it is a foolhardy argument, let me repeat, to say that the C.B.C. should exercise complete control over radio broadcasting in Canada. I
Canadian Broadcasting Act do not care who it is that advocates that argument, what I say is true. Some of these days, when it is too late, he will repent of his error.
Let me read again from what Brock Chisholm said:
It is utterly ridiculous for a person to attend an international conference of any kind if he has not at least prepared himself by some study of the history, the ethical systems, and the religions of the natives of the countries with whom he will be discussing matters of concern to all of us.
I put that on record, not because I am particularly concerned about it, but to be fair by giving the context. And then he continues:
Some knowledge of normal psychology, at least some knowledge of minor psycho-pathology, something of history and perhaps most importantly, comparative religion-
What is that?
-is an absolute essential to effective work in the international field.
"Effective"-in what regard?
The time has not yet come when the peoples of countries regard their responsibilities with such importance that they make sure they do send the right people to all international meetings to represent them and to see that war will not occur again.
I wonder if Canadians have sensed their responsibility in sending Brock Chisholm to those meetings? He assumes, I suppose, that he was predestined from his mother's womb to go to these meetings. And apparently the C.B.C. feel that he was so predestined to talk over the radio.
Well, I face the matter with considerable reservation. I have been hesitating all morning as to whether I should say what I am now going to say. But I believe I will say it. I wonder if hon. members know where communism began. I wonder if they know that the broad pattern of communism was laid down in 1812 with the death of a certain great international financier. In 1812 this great international financier, whose name I shall not mention, but whose name I could give, just as quickly as I now snap my finger, gave his sons a commission to destroy Christianity and to destroy the British commonwealth.
That is not idle fancy; that is verifiable fact. And the device they were to use to destroy both of them was to destroy man's faith in the bible. Now, how were they to go about that? He left them adequately supplied with money. This is the device they used: they built up what was known as the new learning. They built up in Germany what they called the new learning, and they brought that new learning into the seminaries where the young priests of Britain were being taught.
1-.-	HOUSE OF
Canadian Broadcasting Act
What was the new learning? First of all there was the evolutionary theory, that man arose from maggots, lice, monkeys. And they literally filled our textbooks, entirely against the will of the people, with propaganda in favour of evolution; and never a word in any way in answer to the pernicious doctrine-a doctrine which modern science has proved is utterly false. That was No. 1.
No. 2: Higher criticism. Higher criticism had a considerable vogue in the last two generations. Briefly it was a systematic calling in question of the bible text, as to authorship, arrangement, dates, and historic accuracy. You hear very little of it today. But the malignant evil which resulted from it has persisted. It got in among the people -the tendency to doubt the verbal or verbatim authenticity and validity of the bible.
No. 3: Comparative religion. What is comparative religion? Well, in a general way, this is the approach of comparative religion: that Christ was not the original teacher of Christianity at all, but that before He began His ministry He went to visit the people roundabout so as to familiarize Himself with their religions. Then, out of what He learned from the various religions they say He concocted His own religion-so that Christianity would become a hodgepodge of the various religions in the world.
Now, to the person who does not understand the origin of religion, the arguments advanced are completely plausible, completely convincing-but they are utterly false.
What has been the result of these three lines of attack? The result has been to destroy faith in the bible, to destroy faith in the living God, to destroy faith in the Originator of Christianity, the original Teacher of Christianity, as well as faith in the Saviour of the world.
And notice that in his speech this man Chisholm mentions "comparative religion" as one of the qualifications to go to the United Nations-as though that had anything to do with it. What is the result of the whole thing? The result of it is that the people of Canada are tolerating such pernicious doctrines as I have read into the record, tolerating them over the C.B.C!
Did those international plotters succeed? Admirably-admirably! They still are succeeding.
What was the first result of the lack of faith in the bible? Diminution of the Anglo-Saxon birthrate. That was the first thing. One can understand men and women toiling and struggling, the way our admirable people in Canada who have large families are doing. One can understand their doing that, if they
IMr. Blackmore.]


Solon Earl Low: I intend to take but a few minutes to follow what the hon. member for Lethbridge has said and to endorse wholeheartedly what he has said. I speak only because in the course of the debate my name has been mentioned and certain things said which I feel I should answer briefly. To bring you up to date, let me say that on November 9, as reported on page 886 of Hansard, I spoke on the motion to refer the bill to the committee. In the course of that short address I had some things to say about the C.B.C. and more particularly about freedom of speech.
On November 20 the hon. member for Winnipeg North proceeded to take me to task in my absence, although the hon. gentleman did say that he would have been prepared to take me more strongly to task had I been in the house. I am grateful for his consideration and solicitude. On that occasion he said, and I quote from page 1211 of Hansard as follows:
I regret very much that the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low) has been called away from the house on business. I was going to devote some little time to him but in his absence I shall have to modify my remarks. At least the hon. member for Peace River named names. He named one, Dr. Brock Chisholm, who he said has a poisonous mind. A Liberal member said the other night in the house that atheism was being preached over the C.B.C. When I asked him afterwards who was responsible he said it was Dr. Brock Chisholm and Dr. Ewen Cameron.
He then went on to say some other things which I shall quote briefly in a few moments. I stated on November 9 that I was not an intensive listener to the C.B.C. nor to the radio as I had not the time to listen to much of the stuff that comes over the C.B.C. I stated that I felt that I had other important things to do. But I do listen to some of the programs which I enjoy.
I did make the statement that as I went about the country people would tell me their opinion of the C.B.C. broadcasts and I said also that I had accumulated a considerable quantity of criticism, particularly of the commentators. I did mention Dr. Brock Chisholm and suggested that he was spreading his poisonous ideas over the airways. I do not take that back for one second. What has been said today by my colleague, the hon. member for Lethbridge, is ample evidence that Dr. Chisholm has been spreading his poisonous ideas over the airways of this country.
Canadian Broadcasting Act I should like to quote one or two things to indicate that I was making no idle charge. I am not afraid to mention those who have been frequently named as being leftists. I stated on November 9 that many people throughout Canada felt that the roster of commentators engaged by the C.B.C. and paid by the C.B.C. were heavily weighted to the left. I am going to quote one or two things which I have picked up at random out of the file I have accumulated to indicate that a great many people in this country feel as I do.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.
The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m.


Solon Earl Low: Mr. Chairman, when the noon recess was called I was about to put evidence on the record to support what I had said earlier while the resolution preceding the present measure was before the house for consideration. I should like to quote from two or three documents I have in my possession to illustrate the kind of thing that many people throughout Canada are thinking and to give support to what my friend and colleague, the hon. member for Lethbridge, has already said. I have here a copy of a Canadian Pacific telegram, dated November 26, 1951, addressed to the chairman and members of the select committee on the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. These are the words which the sender of the telegram used:
Sirs:
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation again last evening on Week-end Review presented another of those speakers who can generally be counted upon to put across a degree of service to Stalin and his gang, as has been done notably since the start of the Korean war by so many Week-end Reviews and by certain special Sunday evening speakers who follow. A study of scripts by Constance Garneau, Woodsworth, Richardson, Jamieson, Hitchcock and others will reveal, with rare exception, consistent clever subtle propaganda for recognition of red China or turning over Formosa or cold shoulder to Spain or warning against provoking Russia, etc., all cleverly intermingled with many fine ideas and condemnation of certain aspects of communist behaviour but always putting over a line of thought such as Stalin and his gang are anxious to have prevail, even including cleavage between Britain and the United States or Canada and the United States. Moreover, in these weekend presentations I have never heard counter views as Dunton and others so piously pretend when they tell your committee all viewpoints are given hearing. This I categorically deny, and it can be disproved by any qualified sincere painstaking individual given access to pertinent records. Hitchcock's declaration last night that Vishinsky represents 90 million Russians is sample. Viskinsky represents a clique of armed bandits as does each of the delegates from Poland and the satellite countries where people have no voice and no representation. At the same time Hitchcock twists significance of excellent ideas expressed by Prime Minister St. Laurent and uses other most aceptable
1874	HOUSE OF
Canadian Broadcasting Act
theories of his own to bolster his basic propaganda confusing the concept of the enemy at this hour and. undermining resolve and unity of free nations.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Who is that from?


Solon Earl Low: It is from John J. Fitzgerald of Blind River. It is on the record of the committee, or should be. Evidently this gentleman is a constant listener and he has taken particular pains to note the number of times that these week-end reviewers do put over the kind of propaganda that he mentions in his telegram. On other occasions the same gentleman has written to officials of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation about the same matter. I have in my hand a copy of a letter which he sent to Mr. Dunton, Mr. Frigon, Donald Manson and Ernest Bushnell on the twenty-fifth of June last. I should like to quote one paragraph which reads as follows:
From recent correspondence which Is of record a conclusion is imposed that C.B.C. program officials are so zealous in the art of getting away with all the traffic will bear of sugar-coated poison that these officials, when Mr. Woodsworth is not available or repetition of his appearance too conspicuous, feel impelled to get Mr. Richardson from the same newspaper to make sure that the desired line will be faithfully maintained. One would think that speakers like Willson Woodside given a rare hearing just as a smoke screen. Grattan O'Leary and Robert Keyserlingk did not exist.
That sort of thing is heard all over the Dominion of Canada. It is not just an isolated case. 1 hold in my hand a clipping from The Ensign of April 7 last. The heading of the article is, "C.B.C. Broadcast Arouses Grave Concern". The article is from New York and reads as follows:
Surprise and grave concern have been expressed here over the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation's action last week in broadcasting from Lake Success the now discredited opinions of Owen Lattimore concerning red China and the nationalist government. It was pointed out that none of the American broadcasting systems would scarcely even consider putting Lattimore on the air because of his apparent communist sympathies. Why, it was asked, did the C.B.C. choose to do so? On the C.B.C. broadcast-an interview with United Nations correspondents-Lattimore repeated a number of pro-communist propaganda statements. Lattimore, who attempted to sell the idea that the Chinese communists were merely "agrarian reformers", hinted that the west should let Formosa go if the reds attacked the nationalist stronghold. The nationalist government, he claimed, is a "thing of the past", and there was no prospect of reinstating it in China. He said the United States was foolishly alienating support of Asiatic countries by trying to impose on them major decisions made outside of Asia. He cited the branding of red China as an aggressor in Korea as an example.


Major James William Coldwell: From what news agency does that come?


Solon Earl Low: I do not know. As a matter of fact the clipping came into my hands from a correspondent.


Major James William Coldwell: Is there no identification?


Solon Earl Low: Yes, it is from The Ensign of April 7, 1951.


Major James William Coldwell: As it is supposed to be from New York I was wondering what news agency sent it.


Solon Earl Low: I do not know. As a matter of fact, as I said, a correspondent sent it to me along with criticisms the like of which I have already put on the record, and it did not come from the same correspondent who sent the telegram and letter I have already quoted. One could cite and put on the record thousands of such protests. The hon. member for Macleod, who was a member of the committee that studied this legislation and the report of the C.B.C., asked during the committee meetings for a list of all commentators and the dates on which they spoke. He has been unsuccessful in getting that information. He has been told on several occasions that it just is not possible to get it. There is something very wrong if it is not possible to get that list. I think members of the house ought to have such information and the C.B.C. officials should be quite ready to supply it. It is the only way in the world that you can set at rest the minds of members of parliament when so many of them have the idea that the news commentators especially have been for years heavily weighted to the left.


Mr. Robinson:: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Solon Earl Low: Yes.


William Alfred Robinson: Is it not true that the hon. member for Macleod withdrew that request when it was explained to him that it would require a great deal of time to supply the information?


Solon Earl Low: I do not know whether he withdrew it, but the fact remains that the C.B.C. stated that it could not be obtained because it would require so much work. However, that is no excuse. If the C.B.C. and the department are anxious to set at rest the minds of the people of this country, they will supply the information no matter how much time it takes; that is the contention we put forward.
I should like to go back, for just a moment, Mr. Chairman, to the speech given by the hon. member for Winnipeg North on November 20, because it relates to what I have been saying.
The hon. member said this as recorded at page 1211 of Hansard for November 20:
At least we have names . . .
He paid me the compliment of being prepared to at least suggest the names. I said there were people across this country who

believed that the news commentators and week-end commentators were heavily weighted to the left. He said:
At least we have names and we have the scripts of what these men said over the C.B.C.
Now, I ask the members of the committee to particularly note these words used by the hon. member for Winnipeg North:
They said more or less what is being taught in the universities and colleges of Canada today.
I should like to make one comment on that. We know there are a lot of things being taught in universities and colleges today that are pure rot, and ought not to be taught. But in the interests of freedom of speech, and in the interests of freedom of thought, we concede the right of the colleges to teach them. I am not protesting against that now, although I tell you it is a terrible thing when so many of our immature boys and girls have to be subjected to some of the things that are being taught in our colleges. The thing I am trying to get at is that, even if there are things being taught in the colleges and universities today, that is no reason why the same things should be taught over the C.B.C., where no one can ask questions; where no one can call for an examination or give an answer. It is against that sort of thing, Mr. Chairman, that I protest. The hon. member continues:
Why should not the ordinary person have the advantage of that teaching? Now let us consider this poison of which Dr. Brock Chisholm is accused. He said-and this seems to be his philosophy-
The hon. member for Winnipeg North goes on and quotes from the same broadcast as that from which my hon. friend quoted when he spoke in this debate immediately preceding me. But this is the extract the hon. member for Winnipeg North quotes:
When we can live together in understanding and tolerance and compassion and in the hope that we may be able, enough of us, to love our neighbour whatever his race, religion, colour of skin, ideology, economic or social group-when we can do that, we shall no longer be found in the ranks of man's last enemy-himself. Instead we shall become friends of, and assets to, mankind.
Then the hon. member for Winnipeg North says: "Is that poison?" Well, Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Winnipeg North selects a noble and high sentiment out of a whole broadcast and quotes it, then asks if that is poison. I answer him readily, no.


John Horne Blackmore: You could put strychnine in a good piece of meat.


Solon Earl Low: Yes, you could put strychnine in a good piece of meat, as the hon. member says. Doubtless in the course of his broadcasts Dr. Chisholm does express some high sentiments. There is no doubt about that at all. What we object to is not those high sentiments, those noble thoughts such as the
Canadian Broadcasting Act isolated one or two the hon. member for Winnipeg North quoted. The hon. member for Lethbridge attempted to ask the hon. member for Winnipeg North if it was to those noble sentiments that I was referring, but the member for Winnipeg North would not reply to the question.
Those were not what I was referring to at all when I described some of Dr. Chisholm's ideas as poison. What I was referring to was exactly the type of statements quoted from Dr. Chisholm's broadcast by the hon. member for Lethbridge. He quoted three and showed how they were very concentrated and subtle propaganda. That I believe; and it was the kind of thing to which I took exception, not the noble statements quoted by the hon. member for Winnipeg North. I do not intend to put the three quotations used by the hon. member for Lethbridge on the record again. I do not want to take that time, but I should like to pass on to something else that was said by the hon. member for Winnipeg North and which requires some consideration.
The hon. member quoted from a radio address which I gave on December 18, 1946, on a program entitled "The Nation's Business". After quoting what I said about a tie-up between international communism, international finance and international political Zionism, he used these words:
These are the views of the member for Peace River. I have no doubt they were spoken with conviction, but he is convinced of things which I believe to be wrong. He has faiths and beliefs which I cannot accept; and he is loyal to ideas which I abhor and scorn. I would say indeed that the ideas enunciated in that broadcast were dangerously subversive, that they approached something close to racial hatred.
The point I was making in that broadcast from which the member for Winnipeg North quoted this excerpt was that I believed fully and deeply that there was a tie-up, and had been for many years, between three international policies: international communism, international finance, and international political Zionism. I am not going to debate that proposition today, because this is not the proper place. I say now that I am prepared to debate it with the hon. member for Winnipeg North or anyone else, because I have the information upon which to base my beliefs, and evidence to support my claim. But that is not the point. I ask hon. members of this committee, what can be subversive about the exposure of sinister designs that are intended to undermine and destroy the things and institutions which provide our safety, yes, our freedom and our happiness in this country and in the British commonwealth? What I was discussing in that broadcast was policies, not people. I was discussing the policy of

Canadian Broadcasting Act international communism, the policy of international finance and the policy of international political Zionism. I sought to show that there was a close tie-up between them.
What can be subversive in the discussion of policies, and especially those policies? If by subversive the hon. member for Winnipeg North means an effort to expose the policies for what they really are, or my effort to prevent the achievement of the design against the freedom and well-being of the people of the world, but more particularly the people of the British commonwealth of nations, then I do not in the least mind being called subversive. Evidently the hon. member for Winnipeg North loves these three policies I have named, and which I did my best to expose for what they really are. I shall always do my best to expose them for what they really are. The hon. member says in reference to me:
He has faiths and beliefs which I cannot accept; he is loyal to ideas which I abhor and scorn.
Then he goes on to say what those ideas are. Here are his words:
I would say indeed that the ideas enunciated in that broadcast were dangerously subversive, that they approached something close to racial hatred.
Mr. Chairman, if he does not love these policies that I have already named for you, at least he condones them because he abhorred what I said about them.
It has always been quite surprising to me, Mr. Chairman, that some people have been exceedingly touchy about the discussion of certain policies. They get jittery, and in order to divert attention from telling arguments that may be advanced about those policies, they resort to personal smear tactics and even to character assassination. It almost makes one feel that they have something to fear from the discussion of those policies. That may not be the case with my friend the hon. member for Winnipeg North; but when one attempts to discuss a policy, and, when someone else stands up in the house and says that it is dangerously subversive and akin to racial hatred, when it is not even remotely related to either, one begins to wonder if that person is not worried lest the truth come out. I am of the opinion that that is exactly the situation with regard to the hon. member for Winnipeg North.
Let me just make clear, once and for all, Mr. Chairman, this important point. We Social Crediters have always stood for freedom of speech and we now stand for the fullest possible measure of freedom of speech. We believe in real freedom of speech, however. By that I mean that we believe in granting every opportunity for the discussion of any beliefs, policies and ideas that


have merit. We believe that they should be discussed openly, by logic and reason, not by insult or vilification.


John Horne Blackmore: Or in telling one side of the story.


Solon Earl Low: We further believe that all sides of these questions ought to be discussed. There is no freedom of speech in any country in which discussion is limited to one side or in which a certain definite line is taken and held preponderantly for months on end. So long as the discussions are balanced fairly, we do not think there is any danger. But we definitely deplore any attempt to weight discussions so that one view is pounded in upon the consciousness of our people day after day and month after month.
We do not believe that sufficient evidence has been adduced by any investigation carried on thus far to show that there is real freedom of speech on the C.B.C. We think that investigation ought to go forward until the subject has been exhausted; and the C.B.C. should be prepared to supply to the members of the House of Commons and to the committee on radio any and all information necessary to enable them to make up their minds about the matter. There are some features of the bill which we do not like, Mr. Chairman, but I am not going to discuss them now in detail. The discussion of them will be possible on the individual items. Before I sit down one thing I should like to say about the general policy or principle of the bill is this. I was sorry to note that no effort has yet been made to set up, for the purpose of regulating radio in Canada, an independent commission that is separate and distinct from the competing body, the C.B.C. We have been consistent in our belief that justice can never be done in this country to private radio and to the people generally until we have some regulating body that is separate and distinct from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, which is a competing institution in the field of radio. As we come to the individual sections, Mr. Chairman, we shall have something further to say.


Mr. MacLean (Queens):: Mr. Chairman, it was not my original intention to speak in this debate but, having listened to the eloquent speeches of the hon. member for Macleod, the hon. member for Lethbridge and the hon. member for Peace River, I feel obligated to express my point of view lest this committee might be accused of the very thing of which the C.B.C. is being accused, namely of expressing consistently a point of view which is not indicative of the general point of view of everyone represented.

While I agree in general with the philosophy of life, shall we say, of these hon. members, I do not at all agree with their interpretation of how that should apply to the C.B.C. and to their programs. While I think it may have been unfortunate that a certain series of programs were broadcast by the C.B.C. which consistently expressed one point of view only, I think we should be exceedingly careful before we take or suggest taking any step which might limit our liberties in any way or in any way set the C.B.C. up as a censoring body with regard to what our thought should be. As I said, I think it was probably unfortunate that a certain series of programs expressed only one point of view. I think this series of programs on which the much-discussed Brock Chisholm spoke would possibly have been brought into balance if the other point of view had been expressed by someone else as it was expressed by these hon. gentlemen today in this chamber. If one of these hon. gentlemen had been on that series of programs, for example, I think it would have brought the thing into balance. But I do not agree in any way that we should go to the slightest extent in the direction of censorship of our opinion.


Solon Earl Low: I agree with that statement.


John Angus MacLean: After all, we should remember that through the ages almost every advance-especially any advance in the fields of science-has been attacked as being against progress and contrary to religious beliefs. All sorts of accusations have been hurled at these advances. But in the end, in most cases the scientific principles have proven to be the truth. I think there is nothing we can lose if the truth is allowed to be expressed. If it is not the truth, it will not stand on its own feet but will fall by the wayside, provided that a free expression of opinion is allowed from all points of view.
We have advanced to a new high in civilization, or at least we imagine we have done so, by the formation of the United Nations since the last war. The United Nations has recently produced what is known as a universal declaration of human rights, and all member nations have subscribed to that declaration. Two of the articles which I will read would, I think, be a fair guide in governing us as to what is suitable and what is not suitable to be broadcast by our nationally-owned broadcasting system or by a privately-owned broadcasting system controlled by our government. Article 18 of the universal declaration of human rights reads as follows:
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either
Canadian Broadcasting Act alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, worship and observance.
Article 19 reads:
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
If we govern ourselves by the principle that is expressed in these two articles, we will not be far astray as far as our public broadcasting is concerned. By saying that I do not for one moment mean that I would agree with all points of view expressed by anyone over the air; but if we confine ourselves only to the broadcast of opinions with which everyone agrees I am afraid these discussion programs would be pretty sterile affairs. Therefore I think a divergence of opinion is quite justified, provided that all points of view are expressed.
There is another point on which I wish to speak briefly, and then I shall conclude. I refer to the present set-up of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. As everyone knows, when the Canadian broadcasting system was brought into being in the 1930's the idea was that it should be set up as a state monopoly of broadcasting similar to the British Broadcasting Corporation, but in actual practice it was found not to be a practical thing, and as the Massey commission reports:
It soon appeared, however, that these pioneers in the field of radio broadcasting had made a place for themselves in their own communities and that they could perform important national services. It seemed therefore in the national interest that the C.B.C. should recommend the continuance of their licences and that they should be regarded as an integral part of the national system.
Therefore we have the situation where private broadcasters exist, and yet no provision had been made in the original legislation for their existence. We have the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in the position of being the parent of an unwanted child, if you wish. We have the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in the position where it realizes that private stations exist, but their existence was not planned in the first place. In actual fact a different set of circumstances exists now from those which were originally anticipated. Therefore I think we should not confuse ourselves by assuming that the private stations should be entirely controlled by the C.B.C. There has been a lot of confused thinking on this matter, and people have been led to believe that if a separate non-partisan body was set up to control broadcasting generally, to set down the regulations and to enforce
1878	HOUSE OF
Canadian Broadcasting Act them, which should be applied to all broadcasting, certain services which are now supplied by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation would disappear. That is not true. I see no reason why the excellent public services which are carried on by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation should not continue when subsidized by the government in various ways, even though broadcasting generally. was controlled by an independent body.
As a further admission that the existence of the private broadcasters is justified the Massey report goes on to say:
In this broad country we still have inadequate radio coverage; without the supplementary outlets of the private stations many more areas would be deprived of the national programs of the C.B.C., and could be reached only at great additional public expenditure. Apart from this direct national service, the private stations perform community services which, as they rightly point out, are important to the nation: local advertising is in itself a service of value to the community; local news, information and the promotion of worthy causes are essential services, as many individuals and groups have testified. A third proper function of the local station is the encouragement and development of local talent.
I do not think there is any argument as to the value of the private stations. That being so, I see no reason why the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation should be put in the awkward position of trying to determine what is just treatment for what is in actual fact a competitor of its own in certain cases. As I said, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is in the position of being the parent of an unplanned and unwanted child, and finds itself in the position of being torn between mother love on the one hand and embarrassment for the very existence of the private stations on the other. As far as the laying down of regulations and their enforcement are concerned, I would suggest that the control should be in the hands of a separate and non-partisan body, as are the railways. The Canadian Pacific Railway is not bound by regulations which are made by the officials of the Canadian National Railways, but rather both are controlled by the board of transport commissioners. The same principle could very well apply to broadcasting. You have the position of a crown company competing with private enterprise. In that connection I might quote again from the universal declaration of human rights. As a matter of fact 1 shall give two quotations. Article 25 says in part:
All children, whether horn in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.
Perhaps we could apply that principle in a wider sense to the private broadcasting


industry in this country. The article I really intended to quote when I started is article 10 which says:
Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations.
I submit, Mr. Chairman, that that principle should be applied in the case of the private broadcasters in this country as well as to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation itself.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I should like to add a few words to what has been said, and it so happens that they really follow along rather naturally from what the hon. member for Queens has been saying.
I wish to make some comments on the control aspect of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, and particularly as it may affect the freedom of the press. I wish to make it very clear that on what I call the production, the artistic side of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, not only am I not criticizing, I wish to applaud. I feel they have done a great deal of good work and, have conducted themselves in a constructive manner. They have brought honour in certain cases also on the name of our country abroad.
I would like to say also that although I myself am a very inadequate and intermittent user of radio, nevertheless I feel that I know enough about it to applaud the attitude of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in not being content always to follow public opinion but sometimes seeking-and I hope successfully-to lead public opinion.
I do not share the views which I have sometimes heard expressed criticizing the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation because they try to keep above the highest common factor of the average taste of the most of us. I think it is desirable, and I think all of us in our better moments admit that we need education, and need to have our taste improved. For example, in the case of music-and there may be some others in the house who have had the same experience as I have had-I confess that when I first listened to classical music it seemed to me like an unknown and foreign language. But, as I have gone on, I feel I appreciate it at least to some extent-not as well as the educated musician-but at least to some extent. I think where this has been done in the case of children the results have been not only gratifying, but obviously much more important, because the results will last longer.
So I just wish to make it clear that my comments are not with regard to the programming of the C.B.C., but because in my

opinion by government policy the C.B.C. is asked to do something which, in the first place, I should not think it would have any particular qualification to do, even if they were perfectly free and single-minded about it and which, secondly, I think it is impeded from doing because, so far as I can see, it cannot be completely independent and singleminded. I had better face the fact now that the actions of a former leader of this party, who was prime minister in 1935, may be invoked against me. May I digress for a moment to say that I am one who believes that history has dealt very shabbily with that gentleman. I would like some of those who quote him in this connection to give him credit for the energy and the courage he displayed in those years. Sometimes, the way people talk, one would think he invented the depression during the thirties, which existed throughout the whole free world. However, that is by way of digression.
I would like to point out that apparently the C.B.C. whose relationships the member for Queens said were a little equivocal, had apparently two birthdays. I gather the C.B.C. had a fifteenth anniversary of its founding some time ago and, if my mathematical calculation is correct, that takes one back to 1936. Actually the C.B.C. was set up in 1932 or 1933. But, I suspect, it was done away with, and a new beginning made in 1936. So that it would then date from that time. The real founder would be forgotten, or at any rate would get no credit for what he did- except when such insignificant persons as myself bring the matter up.
I might question that, but I do not know that I need to take the time of the house to go further. I believe it was a Scottish chieftain who said that the world dated from his birth, and he calculated all things from that time. Maybe we also must calculate all things from certain political celebrities and certain political anniversaries in this country. That is something we must accept, and accept with the best grace we -can.


Mr. McCann:: Nobody is doing it but yourself. I never have heard it expressed in the house before.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: If the minister tells me I am wrong about the fifteenth anniversary, then I shall accept his correction with the best grace I can. But I was credibly informed that that fifteenth anniversary was observed.


James Joseph McCann: Informed by whom?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: And I am
sure any graduate from Queen's will know that fifteen from fifty-one leaves thirty-six.
Canadian Broadaasting Act


An hon. Member:: How about any graduate from public school?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: He might know about it, too. We are not so much above the public school level of development, according to the testimony of people who come from other universities.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Why single out Queen's?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I know the Minister of National Health and Welfare, who comes from another place, which he regards very highly, would perhaps have a lower opinion of Queen's than one would expect a man of his intelligence to have.


Paul Joseph James Martin: As a matter of privilege, I have a high opinion of Queen's. But I thought my hon. friend had a higher opinion of other places.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I have only in a very indirect way suggested any criticism of other places.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What "other place" are you talking about?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I had wished to refer to the aspect of control, and this comes to my mind by reason of the Massey report. Because this report not only recommends the continuation of the control, subject to the right of appeal, but it seems to feel it desirable that the control should be exercised more authoritatively than in the past.
I read from page 284 of the report where it says:
In 1936, the C.B.C. was constituted-
There it is, you see; the birthday is 1936. Evidently the earlier date was a kind of illegitimate birth, which has been forgotten.
l'n 1036, the C.B.C. was constituted to "carry on a national broadcasting service within the Dominion of Canada" . . . the only status of private broadcasters is as part of the national broadcasting system.
It is important to remember that phrase, because we come to that line of reasoning again and again. Then, referring to private broadcasters, the report continues:
They have no civil right to broadcast or any property rights in broadcasting. They have been granted in the national interest a privilege over their fellow-citizens, and they now base their claim for equality with their "business rivals" on the abundant material rewards which they have been able to reap from this privilege. The statement that the board of governors of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is at once their judge and their business rival implies a view of the national system which has no foundation in law, and which has never been accepted by parliamentary committees or by the general public . . .

Canadian Broadcasting Act
We. are resolutely opposed to any compromise of the principle on which the system rests and should rest.
I am not going to enter into any argument with the Massey commission on points of law. All I wish to do is to introduce the much humbler ground of common sense.
At page 283 the report lays down the following principle-and here you have the same continuation, the same kind of argument which flows all the way through this report:
The principal grievance of the private broadcasters is based, it seems to us, on a false assumption that broadcasting in Canada is an industry. Broadcasting in Canada, in our view, is a public service directed and controlled in the public interest by a body responsible to parliament.
Let us examine this bold and categorical statement which the Massey commission makes. Can the Massey report, by an ex cathedra statement of this kind, alter existing facts? Surely the truth is that radio broadcasting is, in one of its aspects at any rate,
. an industry. It is one of the most important industries, the dissemination of news which is becoming, we are assured, increasingly more important. When they speak about there being no property rights, it has been well pointed out by those who have examined the situation closely that at the time of the invention of printing there was no property right in it, either. In some countries it was converted into a state monopoly, or it was placed under the church and subjected to licensing. It was only gradiually, particularly in the democracies, that property rights in printing and publishing were recognized!, and made free from licensing and censorship.
Surely it is correct to say that radio is a most potent industry, when it is an agency for the dissemination of news. Then, if the C.B.C. is to continue to control the news, are we not practically turning the clock back and returning to the situation of hundreds of years ago, by putting the dissemination of news under licensing and censorship?
It is not necessary to say, what I believe to be the fact, that up to the present time the corporation has exercised this right with restraint and, I think, with a sense of co-operation. I am assured by fair-minded private broadcasters that that is so. But my first comment is that if the power is a bad power, liable to abuse in the hands of men who are not moderate, then it is folly in the highest degree to continue it merely because at the moment it may be exercised with restraint and control. That is not all. I am not suggesting today that, merely because I am assured it is exercised in the main with restraint and consideration, there is not


a great deal of evil connected with it even now. Let me read again from the Massey report, page 27, as follows:
The board of governors retains its control over air channels and programs. This it does in two ways: first, through its power to recommend to the Minister of Transport the grant, renewal or cancellation of licences, and second, through its power to regulate the nature and amount of advertising, political broadcasts, and in general, the character of all programs broadcast in Canada by any station.
I believe that power is having a considerable restraining effect even at the moment. The power outlined there is not a wishy-washy power; it is a power of life and death. It would be entirely unrealistic to suppose that the people in any private station faced with this power would feel that they were not in any way affected. I am informed by well-informed people that it is a mere statement of fact to say that every broadcast over a private station is more or less conditioned by the fear of offending the government. The C.B.C. has the power of life and death over every broadcasting station. As I said, if people have the power of life and death it does not matter much whether they exercise it in a nice or a nasty way. I remember reading an essay somewhere on murder, I think it was by De Quimcey. The author said that he "once knew a bulldog who had murdered a brother bulldog with pleasing circumstances of good taste". I suggest that it is not going to be at all helpful to the private broadcasters if this power of life and death is used even in the most pleasant of fashions. The fact that you give a cigarette to a man who is going to hang makes no difference, because he is hung all the same.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Hanged.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I thank the hon. member for correcting me. What I have said is that this power overhanging the private broadcasters, however pleasantly it may be used, comes very near to being a prebroadcast censorship.
We should not pretend that there is not a powerful tendency to suppress criticism of the government.
For instance, take what is going on at this very moment. I am assured that with the present situation so full of moment for the private broadcasters, with the Massey report having been published, with the brief of the private broadcasters having been presented, with the debates in this house and with all the other things that are going on, there has been very little radio discussion by the private stations, and that only in a very guarded and tentative manner. I am assured of that by a man who I believe knows what he is talking about. If that information is

correct it does much to demonstrate the fact that there is a feeling of fear and hesitation to express themselves freely in the face of the government and the corporation.
There are just one or two further comments I wish to make. I am sorry to weary the minister and the government, but the first fifteen minutes are the worst.


Douglas Charles Abbott: It would be most interesting if it were correct.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I only wish that the minister would be, not merely interested, but convinced. I should like to ask the committee to examine for a moment or two the nature of this new agency for the dissemination of information. As the London Economist points out, it is the greatest invention since the invention of printing. The Massey report, on page 23, indicates that Dr. James Thompson, for a short time acting general manager of the C.B.C., referred to radio as being a new device of singular potency for entertainment, information and public persuasion. Does not that phrase "public persuasion" raise inescapable questions as to whether this device of singular potency for entertainment, information and public persuasion should be in the hands of a corporation which to all intents and purposes, so far as control is concerned, is a monopoly?
Does anyone believe that however much it is desired to create an independent corporation, however genuine the officials are in their desire to be absolutely independent, they are not absolutely independent, that the corporation is still, when all is said and done, a creature of the state? Yet the Massey commission, far from deprecating this control, recommends that it should be more vigorously exercised and in that way gives it a kind of additional respectability, I suppose.
Let us look at this for just a moment from the point of view of freedom of the press. Someone has pointed out that anyone who can hire a printing press and buy sufficient newsprint can publish, a newspaper, that he does not have to ask the government's permission. But anyone cannot operate a radio station. For one thing we are told that the frequencies are limited and have to be rationed. An informant tells me that that reason is rapidly disappearing as science is overcoming the shortage and we are going to have an abundance of frequencies, if we have not already.
Even if the reason advanced of the necessity for allocation is a valid one, it does not follow that the C.B.C. needs to be invested with power over what the private stations shall broadcast. The situation in the terms of the dissemination of news has been well pointed out by a man, I think he is a newspaper man, who said that it is as if newsprint were so
Canadian Broadcasting Act scarce that it had to be rationed by government control and as if the government then said to the newspaper publisher "Before you can have newsprint you must agree to stop publishing speeches by Mr. Drew or stop putting advertisements on the back page or stop making rude comments about Mr. Gardiner in your editorials." If anything like that were done of course it would at once arouse vehement protests, and yet I suggest- I do not think it can be contradicted-that something like that is implied in the power of the C.B.C.
I am utterly unable to understand why the C.B.C. should desire to continue with this power and why the government should be so anxious to have them continue. I would have thought that they could do what, it seems to me, is their real job much better if they did not have this other job to do. It seems to me that that is not their real job and it is one which they should not have at all. I think they would be extremely well advised to divest themselves of this, and I believe it would add to their public support.
It is interesting to note that when radio first came into existence it was placed under the Department of Marine and Fisheries. Apparently no one was very interested in the child and perhaps there was a spare office in that department. That was the way it went. For some years it sort of bounced about and then it was recognized for the great and overwhelmingly important thing that it was but it was some time before it was realized that an invention comparable to printing had been discovered.
I think it would be the height of folly if, because we are ready to praise, as I am, the C.B.C. for the work which they have done and for their enlightened attitude on aesthetic and intellectual development, we were to overlook the fact that here we have a tremendous potential danger to the freedom about which we talk so much. It does not need much stretching of the imagination on the part of anyone to see someone at the head of the C.B.C. who would regard it as childish folly not to use the C.B.C. in times of a general election. I have said already that I believe that those at the head of it are doing their utmost to avoid that. I repeat what I said a moment ago, that we would be foolish to deny the possibility that we might have a very different kind of people and a very different kind of time. Of course everyone knows that radio has been the greatest weapon that dictators have had. I remind you again of Dr. Thompson's words, that it has "singular potency for public persuasion".

Canadian Broadcasting Act
There is one further quotation I wish to make from the Massey report. They recommend that the grant of the privilege of radio broadcasting in Canada should continue to be "under the control of the national government, free from partisan interests." This is surely a very naive statement. It is only in another and better world that we can really expect a situation of that kind. One writer pertinently asks whether a public corporation is ever completely protected against political considerations. I should like to refer ' to a statement of Sir Frederick Ogilvie. I do not know anything about him except that he was the second director general of the
B.	B.C. For all I know he may be the world's greatest reactionary, but it does not worry me in the least. I want to quote a statement he made in February 1946, and members can make up their minds whether or not his words are correct. He had this to say:
Monopoly of broadcasting-*
I will come back to that point. I realize that technically we have not a monopoly, but I am suggesting that broadly speaking we have something equivalent to a monopoly. Sir Frederick said:
Monopoly of broadcasting is inevitably a negation of freedom, no matter how efficiently it is run. or how wise and kindly the board or committees in charge of it . . . The B.B.C. itself, good as it is, would gain vastly by the abolition of monopoly . . . The only possible losers would be the various governments of the day-Labour, Tory, coalition or whatnot. Governments are thoroughly suited by the charter as it stands. What better could any government wish for than to have at the end of the street a powerful efficient instrument which has all the appearance of independence but which by the existing provisions of the charter and licence it can control at will.
As I said a moment ago, technically that is .not our situation. We have private stations but they are under control of the
C.	B.C. I have tried to indicate what I think that means.
There was one thing which bothered the Massey commission and that was facsimile. They seemed to feel that in the case of facsimile there was some danger. It did not fit in with their picture of complete independence. They realized that freedom of the press was involved and their suggestion was that state regulation should be confined to technical matters. On page 292 of the Massey report they ask this question:
How can full liberty be assured to this new form of newspaper production without doing violence to the national broadcasting system?
Further on they say:
. . . we can see many grave objections to imposing upon it the limitations necessary for radio broadcasting but inapplicable to the press. It would seem to us both desirable and practicable to ensure that the potential development of facsimile take

place in an orderly manner and at the same time the traditional freedom of the press be left unimpaired.
What I utterly fail to understand is why the Massey commission, saw the danger there and seemed to think it was confined to facsimile. I think one can only say that they had developed a superstitious kind of worship of the phrase "national broadcasting system", that they seemed to think it had been constructed in heaven and that no one here should lay impious hands on it.
My suggestion is that the argument which led them to stop, look and listen in the matter of facsimile and to try, though perhaps not very effectively, to suggest a way out of that difficulty, should have led them to raise the same question and be troubled by the same doubts with respect to the much broader situation. For that reason I think they were wholly wrong in recommending that these powers be left to the C.B.C. I can only hope that these considerations, which I believe are serious, will not be brushed lightly aside. I think those who take time off to consider them are realizing more and more that there is a problem, and I hope we will not have it brushed aside here in any helter-skelter manner.


Donald Methuen Fleming: There is one brief observation I should like to make. Last night, in speaking on this clause, I made reference to the subject of pending applications for television licences, applications which had been made to the Department of Transport and had been referred by that department to the board of governors of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation for their recommendation in the usual course. I mentioned at page 1847 of Hansard that these applications go back as far as February, 1948, and that some of them are consequently nearly four years old. I find now that I was somewhat misled with regard to that statement. The matter was brought to my attention by a telegram I received at noon today from New Westminster pointing out that radio station CKNW applied for a television licence in August, 1945. The telegram comes to me from station CKNW in New Westminster, B.C.
After obtaining this afternoon a copy of the memorandum filed by the officer of the Department of Transport with the special committee on radio broadcasting, I find on examining the heading of the table that it does not give the information or cover the complete period for which I asked in the committee. The house will appreciate that the proceedings of the committee have not yet been fully printed. The proceedings and minutes of the last three meetings of the committee are not yet available in printed

form. At the meeting of December 6 I asked Mr. Browne, the official of the Department of Transport who was then the witness, to produce a list of the outstanding applications for television licences without any limitation as to time.
When the table was submitted by him it was sent immediately to the printer and copies were not available for the members. I was handed a copy at the meeting of Monday last for the purpose of examining it briefly, and I now find on closer examination that the list covers only the period from January 1, 1948, to December 7, 1951. Therefore we are left in the dark as to what applications were made for television licences prior to January 1, 1948. I can only say that we now find there was at least one, namely, CKNW, New Westminster. How many more there are we do not know because the information asked for was not fully supplied.
Therefore I submit the situation is more serious because it is apparent now, while I am not making comments on the fitness of any applicant for a licence, that the fact of the matter is that applications for television licences have been pending for six or seven years, and it has been and continues to be the policy of the government to deny to Canadians the benefits of television except in so far as television may be provided by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. We are told we must continue to wait and that no action will be taken with respect to any application until the television system proposed by the C.B.C. is set up and in operation. I call that a policy of sterilization on the part of the government, a policy of depriving the Canadian people of television to which I think they are entitled.


James Joseph McCann: That was an application made prior to when it was decided whether or not we would have television at all.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I do not know whether I have made myself clear.


James Joseph McCann: You are pointing out an error in the return.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I am pointing out that the return is not complete and did not give the information I asked for. Far from being a period of three or four years during which those applications have simply been held in suspense, the period has now become seven years. I take it the comment of the minister is directed to the fact the government may not have arrived at a decision as to its policy in 1945 concerning television. How long must the country wait for a constructive policy to develop out of the minds of government? The excuses were given that while
Canadian Broadcasting Act the Massey commission was sitting it was not proper that any policy should be laid down. The majority of the Massey commission has recommended a policy which I believe just contributes to this sterile governmental policy in the field of television.


Mr. Knight:: I should like to say a few words, Mr. Chairman, which, if they do not have much to do with radio or the C.B.C., may have some relevancy to this discussion. With all due respect to the C.B.C. and radio, I think perhaps my subject is even more important. I should like to say a word or two on the question of freedom, and its application to the pursuit of truth. No doubt we are all united in that we do want to pursue the truth. The trouble is, of course, to find out what is truth. It is an age old question. The nearest I can ever get to it here, I think, is by an application of my intellect to my environment, my environment including as it does creeds, ideologies and opinions of all kinds. Then having examined those I must make my choice.
I am not here condemning any particular programs, nor am I advocating any particular programs, but I do assert, and assert vehemently, that speech must be free. By the same token listening must be free. In short, the intellect must be free to make the choice which I have indicated. If we restrict the freedom to listen, then we are indulging in the very same type of authoritarianism which we deplore in certain other countries. We who hold the majority opinion cannot deny the right to the minority to express theirs. There has been mention here of the influence of what has been termed by one hon. member as "bad programs" upon young people. I have had some experience with young people, both my own children and other people's. I should like to state my own position in that regard. These people have upon them the influence-I am now speaking of my own children-of the home. They know the religious opinions of that home, they know our political opinions, and I hope they will be able to form their own opinions about those things. We hope, of course, that they will be guided by our example. Let me make it clear that it is only a hope, and not an insistence. The only pressure which has ever been exerted upon them so far as I am concerned, or ever will be exerted upon them, is the pressure of what I hope is a good example.	.
Sir, the child is a new individual. I do not believe the mere fact that he is my child gives me ultimately the right to warp or twist him. He is a new individual and, may I say, a new soul. He must make his own choice. I would encourage him to look; I

Canadian Broadcasting Act would have him listen to everything. I would have him see everything and examine everything, and then bring to bear his intelligence so that he may make his own choice. My responsibility in the matter is to guide him along what I believe is the proper road, and to provide him with a good example. My responsibility is to see that he is equipped with the ability which he requires to make his choices. I have tried to be open-minded. I do not attend only the political meetings sponsored by my own party. I' go to Conservative meetings, to Liberal meetings and to Social Credit meetings when the opportunity is offered. Let me say that I have learned something from them, and that is why I go. I want to see if there is something I can learn. I do not go there with my eyes and ears closed and with my mind made up.
Let us come to radio, which I might mention incidentally. If there is any control over it, it must be control by a public body which in itself is controlled by this parliament, because parliament represents all the people of Canada. If that applies to radio, it applies with more force to television whose potentialities for good or evil, for vulgarity or decency, are even greater than those offered by radio. In passing, I might say I am well pleased with the C.B.C. on those points, particularly when one considers the difficulties with which that organization has been faced, and which it has done its best to meet. I believe that people at the head of that organization feel their responsibility in regard to the quality of the programs. I believe that when the C.B.C. is not so dependent as it is now upon commercial revenue, it should be able to raise the standard of the average program put out by the corporation.
Now, as to political programs, religious programs or other programs of a controversial nature, I believe they should be in the hands of a body which is prepared to allow all sides of the problem to be aired. This opportunity must be granted, or otherwise this vaunted freedom of speech will be limited by the amount that one is able to spend upon it. In such an event the scales would be heavily weighted in favour of those organizations or individuals who have great funds to spend upon the propagation of their own ideas. These people should have no more privileges on the air than those of less financial means.
I, sir, am not greatly impressed by a doctrine whose holders are not prepared to submit it to argument and public scrutiny. If it is a good argument, a good cause or a good belief, religious or political, it will stand upon its own feet. On the other hand, if those
fMr. Knight.]
opinions which are expressed are unreasonable or poisonous, a word that has been common in this debate, then I say that the public will have the good sense so to adjudge them.


Mr. Gauthier (Portneuf):: If they are prepared to judge it.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Matters of religion and
Christianity have been drawn into thL debate. I do not like to make a parade ot these things, but in so far as I am a Christian -and I hope I am a Christian-then I am a Christian not through coercion and not through fear. I am a Christian by my own choice.
Personally I do not think that the doctrine as espoused by the Sermon on the Mount has anything to fear from its detractors over the air or anywhere else. There was no freedom of speech accorded to the early Christians who founded the Christian faith. It is my contention that although they were a minority group, they were entitled to such freedom. Yet in my hon. friend's view they were a minority group. They were a group of revolutionists, as a matter of fact, who were rejected by the majority, despised by orthodoxy, and persecuted by the money changers; and their leader indeed was crucified. But nevertheless they went on to change the face of the world. That last expression makes me think of John Buchan who, as all hon. members will recall, was for a time Governor General of Canada. He said:
The spark, once transmitted, may smoulder for generations under ashes, but the appointed time will come, and it will flare up to warm the world.
May I say that such spark should not be extinguished, for where there is no spark there can never be a flame.
Finally, let me draw one thing to the attention of some of my hon. friends who think that any opinions with which they do not agree should not be put over the air at public expense. Let me remind them of what Voltaire, with whom I violently disagree on many things, once said in a famous letter: "I disapprove of what you say", said he, "but I will defend to the death your right to say it". That sums up very succinctly and concisely my own opinion with regard to the demand for freedom in its relation to the search for truth.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, there are just one or two matters that I should like to bring to the attention of the committee. On this occasion I do not intend to discuss the abstract subject of freedom nor to re-express my views with respect to any censorship on the part of the C.B.C. over the programs of the C.B.C., particularly as to speech.

I should like to point out, however, that the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix summed up the situation very well in an editorial on November 28 entitled "Mr. Dunton Faces His Censors". That reference had to do with the appearance of Mr. Dunton before the committee of parliament. It there sets out the difficulties of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in these words:
The national radio service will always be subject to political influence. Yet, in the long haul, it is wise to keep effective control in the hands of parliament and government, for at least we listeners can get at these people through the ballot box once in a while.
It deals in general with the subject of censorship and says:
Censorship, whether by elected members of the House of Commons, cabinet ministers, customs officers, provincial bodies or the C.B.C., is a denial of the principle that in democracy freedom must exist under the rule of law.
As I have already said, I do not intend to make any reference to the abstract subject of freedom. But I believe that, when in our country the majority would determine what the minority shall think and say-provided the minority, in thinking and saying what they believe to be correct, are within the law-it would be retrograde and a denial of freedom; for freedom cannot exist when maintained by censorship.
I think that a forward step is being made by the C.B.C. in coming before parliament and receiving grants to continue and to expand the operations of the C.B.C. I challenged that procedure at one time; but having listened to and having read the evidence given before the radio committee, I believe that a forward step is being made in this regard. Someone may say that, in making that statement, I have changed my opinion. In reply, may I say that it should be one of the attributes of freedom not to be bound to the dogmas of one's past thoughts.
Having said that, may I say that I believe that a further forward step should be taken by way of reducing the amount of advertising that today seems to occupy so large a portion of the C.B.C. programs. Where there is advertising, I think it should be restricted to a considerable extent. I can see no reason why Canadians should be told the time and at the same time be subjected to the advertising of any watch company. If the dignity of our nation is to be preserved, surely over the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation stations we are entitled to be told the time without at the same time having a monopoly on the time ascribed to any one watch company.
Then again, I think that some of the advertising is altogether beyond what is fair. It is true enough that all companies will puff
Canadian Broadcasting Act up their products; but when they do it over the C.B.C., which is a national institution, there seems to be added to the claims of private advertising the approbation of the national body administering the C.B.C. I think one of the finest examples of good advertising is that in connection with "Singing Stars of Tomorrow". The reference is made that this program is sponsored by one of Canada's leading retailers, but further than that there is not that nauseating type of advertising that one sometimes hears with reference to tea, coffee, soap and the other things that are advertised on the radio.


Mr. Slick:: Do you use Camay?


Pierre Gauthier: That is limited to persons.


John George Diefenbaker: After all, we are being objective today.


Gordon Graydon: Don't answer. It is not in the public interest.


John George Diefenbaker: I am not going to go that far. But in advertising I feel that a more dignified attitude should be adopted when the facilities of the C.B.C. are used.


James Joseph McCann: You might include the private stations.


John George Diefenbaker: They are commercial stations.


James Joseph McCann: Yes. They can put on anything.


John George Diefenbaker: That has been said so often. Theirs are commercial stations.


James Joseph McCann: Yes.


John George Diefenbaker: My hon. friend the
minister has over and over again stated that the national system is not in competition with the private stations. If it is not in competition with the private stations there is no reason why the private stations, being commercial stations, should not use the type of programs and the type of advertising that they choose without at the same time influencing the national body or the national institution. The very interruption that my hon. friend makes indicates that there is a competition for business as between the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and the private stations, and rather intensifies the demand that hon. members have made over the years; and certainly it underlines the need that where there is competition there should be an independent body to determine the respective rights and authorities of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and the private stations with whom they are in competition. I think the minister, by that very interruption, has given one of the best

Canadian Broadcasting Act arguments why we should have an independent body, designed to assure and preserve that degree of competition as between the national body and the private stations which today is denied when the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is in the position of being competitor, lawmaker, judge and jury in regard to all matters in controversy as between the national body and the private station.
Indeed, I was most impressed by the opinion given in the minority report of Mr. Arthur Surveyer, which is to be found in the report of the Massey commission. In his report he asked for the setting up of a regulating body to determine in a semi-judicial manner the controversies as between the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and the private stations. I am not going into detail at the moment, but I suggest that the amendments proposed in the bill before the committee are merely makeshift. While they appear to set up a semi-judicial or judicial right of review, that is restricted entirely to the rights of the private stations, when a question of law is at stake, to appeal to the exchequer court when a licence of the private station has been suspended or abrogated. The amendment does not cover the field referred to by Mr. Surveyer in his minority report. All it does is to permit the right of appeal on a question of law, not fact, where a private station has had its licence suspended or abrogated.
I cannot understand the attitude of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in being so opposed to an independent body being set up. The Canadian Pacific Railway and the Canadian National Railways are in competition for freight and passenger business. By his interruption a moment ago the minister indicated that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and the private stations are^ in competition over advertising. That being so, where there is a class of interests such as that, surely however well intentioned the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation may be, human nature being what it is, it cannot determine rights as between itself and those with whom it is in competition.
I know this argument will not be accepted, because the stand of the minister and those who preceded him in that position during the last ten or twelve years has been one of very strong opposition to such a body being set up. Nonetheless, as a result of the weight of public opinion, the government has seen fit at least to assure the private stations the right of appeal when deprived of their licences either temporarily or permanently, but that in turn is restricted only to a question of law. What does that mean?

How many appeals will ever be made under that section? If the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation cancels the licence of a private station on -the ground that it has failed to live up to a regulation passed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, that is a regulation as interpreted by the lawmaker, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, there will be no right of appeal. This right of appeal on a question of law is so restricted as to be almost a nullity before it is actually passed by parliament. I am going to suggest to the minister that the right of appeal should be widened to cover not only the questions of law but also questions of fact, so that justice may be assured when and if a private licence is suspended or abrogated either permanently or temporarily.
I now come to one further matter, namely the question of television. Those of us who live in other parts of Canada than Quebec and Ontario have a justifiable complaint that we are to be denied even the prospect of the likelihood of a hope of having television within the next ten years. Montreal and Toronto are to have television stations, but Winnipeg and Vancouver are given a rather nebulous promise that sometime in the dim future stations will be established there. Is television to be held back in this country because of the fact that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation does not desire, for reasons which it knows, or by reason, of difficulties over which it has no immediate control, to give it to us? Are we t-o be denied television when there are available private companies, and I believe private Canadian companies, willing and able to provide television in different parts of our country? Somebody has asked: Are we to allow United States companies to come into Canada and establish television? I only hope the same desire to maintain the development of our country had been characteristic of governments in the past. Our country is being developed; these great oil fields in western Canada are being opened up and are available to Canadians who have initiative to go ahead, yet they were allowed to remain dormant until financial interests in the United States came into our country. I would like to see Canadian companies given an opportunity to establish television in this country; for surely we are not to be held back for years just because the national policy at the moment denies to private companies the opportunity to expand and develop an industry that is rapidly becoming one of the great industries across the line.
How long have we to wait? Well, there is an article in today's Globe and Mail regarding

the television station that is being built in Toronto. It says:
Canadian television programs which, a year ago, were set to begin this fall will not go on the air before June at the earliest, a C.B.C. official said yesterday.
He gave the reason as lack of steel priority and the like. Then he announced this:
A Canadian television network is far in the future.
The article goes on:
It was indicated that licences for private TV stations will not be granted until C.B.C. has a national service.
Now we know, if that C.B.C. official who spoke yesterday in Toronto represented the policy of the C.B.C., that as far as western Canada is concerned, until a national system has been established-and at the rate the C.B.C. is going that is a long, long while in the future-no consideration will be given to the granting of licences to private companies. This is a retrograde step. It is a denial of the type of expansion we need in this country. If private industry is prepared to develop and expand this very necessary mode of communication in these modern days, then surely if the C.B.C. is not in a position to go ahead those of us in other parts of Canada should not have to wait until such time as a national system is set up before consideration is given to the applications of private companies.
Those are one or two considerations which had not been discussed at length, and which I thought should be placed before the committee. I believe the C.B.C. is doing an outstanding job; but that does not mean there is no room for improvement. That does not mean the C.B.C., in its policy on television, should be permitted to stagnate development in this country that would take place if at least the applications for licences by private companies were considered.
Furthermore this policy of stagnation in television is driving Canadians in cities along the border to the United States to secure the kind of programs Canadians have the right to expect in their own country. That would be bearable, were the policy of the C.B.C. such that, while granting priority to the C.B.C., it would not deny to private companies and to the people as a whole the right to the kind of service people across the line receive from private enterprise.


Mr. Mclvor:: Mr. Chairman, I have just a brief word. I was not a member of the committee, but I have read the reports carefully and it is my view that they did a good job.
Canadian Broadcasting Act
I have risen to give two warnings. I have received many resolutions from different branches of the church. Perhaps one of the best was from the Knights of Columbus which, it seemed to me, summed up pretty well what was said in the other resolutions. This particular one warns the government not to allow the C.B.C. to broadcast programs that are atheistic in their nature, sponsored by either men or organizations that treat God as a myth. So far as I am concerned- and I speak for a few-we are not going to tolerate this sort of thing. I am proud to think that the C.B.C. will back up these resolutions.
What is behind this sort of teaching? Mr. Link in his book "Way to Security" states clearly who are back of this propaganda. It is the advocates of Karl Marx. He tells us who Karl Marx was, that he was born of a reputable and well-to-do father. He sent his son to a good school, but the son could not get along with his associates in that school and left. His father got him a good job, and he quit the job because he could not get along with his associates. He married, and after a while could not get along with his wife. He had four sons, three of whom committed suicide. Then he persuaded a wealthy man to give him financial backing so that he could write "Das Kapital". Since that day, and from that book, hate has been spreading throughout the world. I would be sorry to think that the C.B.C. would have anything to do with that sort of thing. I know we believe in freedom of spech, but any freedom that tends to undermine the faith of our fathers and our faith, we are going to watch carefully.
My other word of warning flows from the fact that I have received a number of resolutions to the effect that the C.B.C. should not be used to advertise the liquor business. It has plenty of money to advertise in other ways, and we do not want to have that kind of advertising on the air.
I congratulate the minister upon his patience, and we wish him the best kind of success in his work.


Pierre Gauthier: Mr. Chairman, as a member of the committee on the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation I believe I should make my position clear, especially after the speech of the hon. member for Saskatoon. I thought some of his remarks were intended for me, or for others among my friends who have been advocating that this or that script should not be broadcast over the C.B.C.
I must say that the officials of the broadcasting corporation have demonstrated a full comprehension of our attitude as expressed

Canadian Broadcasting Act in committee. We dealt specially with the scripts of Dr. Chisholm, Dr. Ewen Cameron, Dr. Anna Freud and Dr. Carl Binger, as well as with those of Dr. Bertrand Russell. I shall not discuss all these this afternoon, because I do not wish to delay the discussion.
Let me say, however, that it is not because we do not believe in freedom of speech that we asked the C.B.C. officials not to permit the reading of those scripts on the air. It is because we thought they were wrong. And we thought they were wrong because they advocated policies, for example, such as that of birth control. We ask those who, in the name of freedom of speech, are ready to permit the spreading of those ideas on the air whether, if such a policy were accepted and put into force by the governments of the world, we would be a free people.
It is all right to speak about freedom; but it is easy to be enslaved by having too much freedom, especially when the ideas expressed are wrong. The hon. member for Saskatoon said he did not want to twist or force his children into believing this or that. Well, I do not attempt to give him a lesson in bringing up his children. Such a thing would be far from my mind. But for myself, if I am to be charitable toward my children I believe I have to keep away from them everything that could harm them physically, intellectually, spiritually or morally.
I use the word "morally" with a purpose, because I believe when we permit the expression of the theory of Freud by this or that speaker over the air, then they are expressing an immoral idea. And if immorality is not wrong, then I must ask myself-as all hon. members will-what is wrong? It is immoral to advocate that our children should have no control placed over their sexual appetites. Those ideas have been expressed by some speakers who advocate the Freud philosophy. That is the stand we took in the committee; and we think we were not wrong in asking that normal, sensible ideas be expressed over the C.B.C. and the privately owned stations.
When we ask that the C.B.C. be more careful in the choice of its commentators or moralists, I do not think we are wrong. When we ask that truth be given priority on the air, I do not think we are wrong. I do not think it has been expressed before that truth is relative. Truth is one and indivisible. You cannot have two truths. It is impossible. We do not like to have these principles advocated.
It is all right to say that our children should be free to listen to anything on the radio and form their own opinions. We may think we are right in saying that, but we are wrong because our children have not been
[Mr. Gauthier (Portneuf) .1
prepared to assimilate, to digest and to separate a dish of good food from a dish of poison. They cannot differentiate because they have not been prepared. That is why we ask that a proper selection be made of the scripts used by the C.B.C. I do not think we are wrong or too dogmatic in expressing our views in that regard. It is all right to say that one who expresses a good idea should not be afraid that it will come to naught. Communists were a minority but we allowed them to express their ideas everywhere and distribute their literature. Their philosophy was immoral, but it spread just the same. I am not at all afraid that the principles of the faith in which I believe will be endangered by communist principles, but I say it is not right for a public man to try to do away with the possibility of harm being done to the wax-like intellects of our children. We should not let them listen to everything and try to digest it themselves, especially when they are not prepared. It is our duty, it is the duty of the professors in our colleges and universities, to prepare them.
We should not permit ideas like those advocated by Freud to be spread among our younger population with the possibility of our young people becoming sex maniacs, That is why I got up in the committee the other day to ask that this kind of Script should not be used by the C.B.C. I am a supporter of the C.B.C., as I think they are doing a good job. But I think they have also been a little careless. I hope the few remarks I have made this afternoon will be taken in good part, but if this situation is repeated I will be back again.
I am not ready to advocate that there be a full discussion followed by a vote on this matter. I think I know the opinion of nearly all hon. members in the House of Commons, and I think they will agree with me when I ask the C.B.C. to be careful and more charitable toward our children in the views they permit to be expressed over the air. ,|t is all right to speak in the name of freedom, but I think it is immoral to think that we can give equal rights to evil and good.


Mr. Gillis:: Mr. Chairman, I have listened most patiently to the discussion in the hope that some member from the other end of the country might get up. Someone from practically every part of the country has expressed his opinion on this matter except a representative from the maritime provinces. This is a most thought-provoking subject. After listening to the debate my opinion is that the best contribution has been made by the hon. member for Brandon. He is a young man

still in university as a teacher and is apparently very studious, as is evidenced by the way he handled the discussion. I was very much struck with the observations he made on the whole matter.
I should like to make it quite clear that we have always supported the C.B.C., but I would point out that in the development of radio in Canada the trend has been toward centralization. We would have had no radio until late 1948 in our part of the country if it had been left to the C.B.C. The private station that covers Cape Breton Island, where one-third of the population of Nova Scotia is located, has done a very good pob. I want it to have that credit. It pioneered in that area and gave us service. It took the C.B.C. a long time to realize that there were a few provinces east of Montreal. That has been a general trend, and it has been repeated in this organization.
I was not a member of the committee, but I have read some of the press reports and some of the evidence given before the committee. In so far as television is concerned, no survey has been made of the maritime provinces. The corporation have stated that next year they will be able to give television service in Toronto, and will be close to giving it in Montreal. They have said also that they have a delayed program for Winnipeg and Vancouver, but east of Montreal there has been no thought of anything. I just want to let the C.B.C. know that there are four provinces east of Montreal. The people there pay taxes, and they would like to get television some time. I hope it will not take the C.B.C. as long to develop television in that part of the country as it did to establish radio broadcasting.
The C.B.C. station at Sydney does not provide much competition to the private station because the wavelength is poor, and it is rather difficult to get the station most of the time. Therefore it is rather hard to justify praise of the C.B.C. I believe in the C.B.C. because I think such an agency was absolutely necessary in order to allocate wavelengths and maintain some sanity in the field. They have done a good job on that.
What I am saying with regard to the lack of a survey in that part of the country is pretty well reflected in all government thinking. It is a centralized formula that is established in the centre of Canada. With respect to Brock Chisholm, Bertrand Russell and the others, so far as I am concerned I am completely opposed to that kind of propaganda being broadcast over the air. I think we should sit down, think seriously about the matter and try to differentiate
Canadian Broadcasting Act between freedom of the air and freedom of speech on the one hand and a licence to abuse and insult on the other hand. There is quite a difference. I think the teachings of Brock Chisholm, Bertrand Russell and the rest of them belong in the universities. When a young man or young woman matriculates and enters university I think their minds are mature enough to differentiate between the teaching they got from their fathers and mothers and whatever religious body they may have belonged to and the teachings of the people to whom I have referred. I think they are able to sift the good from the bad in what Brock Chisholm, Bertrand Russell and others are teaching. I do not think it belongs on the air.
There are also those who take the view that people have the right to judge for themselves, and that children have the right to make their own selection. I should like to remind hon. members of an item that appeared in the press a few days ago. It said that 50 per cent of the freshmen class at McGill university were so immature that they did not know who the Prime Minister of Canada was. They thought the Secretary of State for External Affairs was the leader of the opposition. That is not my statement; it is a press statement. It would not be a bad idea if the C.B.C. were to institute a series of lectures to build up the institution of parliament in the minds of the Canadian people. Parliament is taking a pretty bad beating in the press, over the air and in many other ways. Boys and girls who were smart enough to go through high school and enter university apparently do not know very much about the institution of parliament and democracy as we understand it. I think the C.B.C. should put on a program series to try to build up parliament in the minds of the Canadian people, particularly the young people entering our universities because they are the ones who will be the leaders of tomorrow. If they come out of university with minds filled with the teachings of Anna Freud- and Brock Chisholm, the future of Canada is going to be a rather doubtful proposition.
All through the discussion of programs so far as television and radio are concerned I have heard it said that we have to build up the culture of the country. That is a matter of definition. When I listen to Brock Chisholm, Anna Freud and these others, and the debate in the house today, and see the beating the institution of parliament is taking and the ridicule to which members are subjected, I am reminded of the propaganda disseminated in Europe in the twenties and thirties which led to the rise of Hitler. Hon. members will recall that the Hitlers, the Goerings, the

Canadian Broadcasting Act Schachts and the rest of them were going to develop a new culture in Europe. They were going to develop a super race. Their philosophy was based on the teachings of Nietzsche They were going to make Hitler God. All the mythology of the past in the form of religion was to be stamped out. The totalitarian mind is very impatient when it comes to bodies such as the House of Commons, which move slowly. They want the right to move fast and to say they are going to do this and that. This insidious process came into being in Europe, and we should be careful when it comes to determining the cultural requirements of everybody in the country to see that we are not just absorbing a whole lot of the philosophy that has been disseminated throughout the world over the last twenty years in an effort to break down democracy and displace the institution of parliament.
I have sat and listened to all the debate and, mind you, I am just one of the proletariat. I do not consider myself to be very cultured. I think the dictionary definition of culture is that it is a matter of manners, intellect and taste. I know many well-mannered people who are very intelligent but when it comes to a choice between listening to a C.B.C. radio play on the death of Socrates or Amos and Andy, they will pick Amos and Andy. If we believe in freedom then we should have freedom of choice. We should not have something jammed down our throats from coast to coast on a Sunday evening, when people have time to sit down and listen, for which we do not care very much. Having in mind the definition of culture and the classics of the past, it took us a couple of hundred years to get around to saying, "Where are you going?", rather than "Whither goest thou?"
If you try to impose all the limitations and cumbersome methods of doing things in the past on a modern fast-moving world it is not going to work. I should like to know, for example, how many people would listen to a Shakespeare play, or look at it on television, while the Grey Cup final was being broadcast. There would not be very many. When we instituted our radio system I never thought it would be a straight educational and cultural organization moulded to conform to the ideas of any one individual or half a dozen people. The universities and schools are there for that purpose, and people can make their choice of what they want to study.
So far as I am concerned, I visualize radio and television largely as mediums of entertainment. I think that is the purpose for which the average person buys a radio set
[Mr. Gillis.l

and for which he will buy a television set. The great majority of our people left school when they were in very low grades. They are not going to sit in their homes and have heavy Shakespearean plays and that kind of thing thrust at them which most of them do not understand, and no matter how often you keep shoving it at them they will not understand any more about it. They believe and I believe that radio and television should be largely designed to provide entertainment. I know there is a place for education. I enjoy the forum broadcasts very much. In my opinion they are a valuable asset. I listen to them whenever they are on the air. I do not care what the subject is. If two or three people on such a broadcast are discussing a question, then that is educational. You have got three sides of the question in most cases, or two sides with a chairman in the middle keeping the thing in balance. There is a lot of value in such broadcasts. People can understand that kind of thing, but when you take a man like Brock Chisholm and put him on the air with his theories on psychiatry you are only getting one side of the question. There is no debate and no discussion.
In my opinion it is largely wasted, because I do not think the average person in this country is interested in that subject. The great majority of them do not understand what he is talking about. All the evidence I have had as to the value of it has been against it. I have had letters protesting that kind of thing, but I have never had anyone write to me and say we should continue it. I do not believe we should remove it from the air, but I suggest to the C.B.C. that any time Bertrand Russell or Brock Chisholm is to go on the air the program should be like a forum so there could be a discussion of both sides of the subject. I believe the C.B.C. is wrong in putting it on in the manner they have been following.
There are medical doctors in this house, and they know that psychiatry is going directly into that field. The psychiatrist has about as much respect for the medical profession as he has for religion. They believe it is a case of mind over matter. I had one experience with psychiatrists, and if the theories they expressed on these broadcasts were no better than the experience I had with one of them in the veterans affairs department, then I do not think very much of them. When the last war was over the government relegated most of the boys who came out of the service with nervous breakdowns-psychopaths or whatever you want to call them-to the regular insane asylums.

This was done on the advice of the psychiatric department. This department said you could not be good to these fellows because they would never get better. On the advice of this psychiatric division these fellows were put away. Their wives and families were outside without any allowance, and these men were to be cured by leaving them in the institution. Their wives and children were left outside to starve to death.
We had the head of the psychiatric division before the veterans affairs committee at that time. I do not want to be disparaging, but I questioned him for a long time and I never saw a person more in need of a psychiatrist than he was. He stood there and tore a pocket handkerchief into about a thousand pieces while he was talking to us. I do not suppose he even knew he was doing it. I was not impressed with his theories. The government eventually took care of the matter and realized that the wife and children had to eat, regardless of whether or not the man was going to get better. I am not impressed by these theories. I have been the sort of fellow who knew he had to learn a lot, so I have read a lot of that material. It has not changed my opinion about anything. I agree with the hon. member for Macleod that the best teachers for the children of this country are the fathers and mothers in the homes. If the basis of a strong character cannot be made there, then neither Freud nor Brock Chisholm is going to do very much afterward.
I was brought up in a church. I have gone through life, and it has been a rather rough life, but I have never seen anything that changed any of the basic beliefs I learned there. In all the ups and downs of life those basic principles I learned when I was taught my catechism in my church have held constant and still hold good. Any time I hear a person talking about having a Christian philosophy, and at the same time belittling any religious body, I do not believe him. I think everyone who is a Christian finds his beliefs in the same basis. In my opinion all the Christian churches go together; you cannot separate them. I am not in a position to give advice to the hon. members of this house, but I have lived for fifty-five years and I have seen a lot of this world, and I suggest that anyone who has watched events for the last twenty years will realize that we want to be a little careful about our desire to expand freedom of that kind to make sure we are not giving licences to a lot of people.
Let us stop for a moment to think about the trade union movement in this country
94R99-121
Canadian Broadcasting Act and in the United States. No organization in North America has greater respect for freedom than the trade union movement. What do you find the heads of the three congresses doing within the last couple of years? They realized the danger of subversive activities, and they had to use some discipline. They had to get a measuring stick to determine where freedom ended and where licence, abuse and vilification started. These congresses threw out some large bodies of unionists as a disciplinary measure to impress some small groups at the top who persisted in using their positions for the purpose of undermining everything for which the movement stood. I am suggesting to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation that they have a great responsibility to the future of this country, as have the newspapers. When they are thinking and talking about this business of freedom, democracy, preserving peace and all the things which we are building an army to defend, our language should be as moderate as we can *possibly make it. This institution of parliament should not be held up to ridicule as it has been on a good many occasions in the last couple of years.
When controversial subjects are being dealt with, such as the one about which we are talking-and it is controversial because it hits at the very roots of society-rather than having one man on the air for half an hour the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, recognizing that it is controversial, should have someone else there to take the other side of the argument. The program should be a forum. I do not believe in stopping anyone from expressing his opinion, but I feel that with subjects such as this which are highly controversial care should be taken that they are presented in such a way that the people listening have an opportunity of balancing one statement against the other.


John Horne Blackmore: I have greatly enjoyed the contributions of the various members in respect of this whole matter, Mr. Chairman. At the beginning of the discussion my remarks were rather inclined to be nonconstructive, but I should like to say something of a constructive nature now.
As other hon. members have so well said, I believe that all the points of view on all subjects, religious, political or other kinds, ought to be given an opportunity of being heard. I believe in freedom of speech to the fullest degree. Our position is that no particular philosophy or interest originating propaganda should be given free play to establish its particular notions consistently and consecutively without adequate reply.

Canadian Broadcasting Act
If we might refer to our friend Brock Chisholm again for a moment or two, I would say that apparently we are discussing his particular freedom to use the air. I wonder why Brock Chisholm should have any more freedom to use the air than any of the other several million mature men in Canada.
I do not think he has established any right above the rights of other people to have his opinions freely expressed. Then is Brock Chisholm speaking for someone else? Is there some interest behind Brock Chisholm which is seeking for freedom of expression? I am afraid that is the case, although I hope it is not.
I said this morning some fairly strong things, and I meant them; and I will say them again any time they need to be said. But I should like to put on what I said this qualification, which I thought unnecessary at the time but which I certainly had in mind. I do not mind having Brock Chisholm come into my home and express his views freely if I can be in my home and have just as much time as he has to put forward the other side. Let us take, for example, the evolutionary theory. I should be quite happy to have him discuss before my family-and they are the most precious possessions I have in life-the evolutionary theory if I can be there to say: "Now, look here, friend, have you read Sir Ambrose Fleming's "Origin of Mankind"? Are you aware that this book completely subverts your evolutionary theory? Have you read "The Bible is True" by Charles Marston, published in 1934? Do you realize that that destroys completely the grounds for your attitude of higher criticism toward the bible, as does also "The Bible comes Alive" published in 1937 by the same man? Do you realize that Sir Ambrose Fleming is backed up by Lecomte du Nouy in his "Human Destiny" and by Sir James Jeans, one of the very best scientists in the world?"
If I can have the time to put those things before my family in his presence, or before anybody else's family, I have no anxiety because Brock Chisholm and all the men believing as he does can be utterly torn to shreds by men who are as well informed as they are on the other side of the subject they are discussing. But to put him up there with a free hand for fifteen, twenty, thirty or forty minutes, with no chance in the world for anyone to answer him, is something that I say is almost necessarily the abnegation of true freedom of speech.
I rather incline to the ideas expressed by two or three hon. members whose names I have forgotten for the moment; the hon. member for Cape Breton South was the last one. If we are to discuss for instance the
matter of what to do about the rapidly increasing birth rate in certain parts of the world, let us plan a town meeting of the air. Let us have three or four men who are qualified to talk about the matter. Let us meet and prepare thoroughly, as I know men do when they are going to have a town meeting of the air, and let us have somebody there who can present the alternative to the reckless idea Brock Chisholm is endeavouring to establish in the minds of the people. Then I would have no anxiety at all.
I would rather like to hear Brock Chisholm on the air if you could put alongside of him a man who knew how to deal with him; and there are plenty of those. I would not hesitate to stand before him at any town meeting of the air or on any platform; and there are plenty of people who could do the job just as well as I could.
Mr. Chairman, I thought it was probably well to say what I have said, in a manner, closing off what I said a little while ago. I still agree with exactly what I said, but I would put this little modifying speech alongside the former one, as giving the C.B.C. something constructive to work on rather than only what would be destructive.


Agar Rodney Adamson: Mr. Chairman, I merely want to make one or two remarks on this subject. I think the debate has been extremely interesting. It shows one thing, namely the danger of a central government organization in radio, and the extreme danger lest we in this chamber set ourselves up as censoring what the Canadian people shall listen to. That is a dangerous trend. I do not think it is part of the job of a parliament to state what shall and what shall not be listened to. I merely mention that point because of the same dangerous trend which I see in these discussions.
The mass media of the radio and the moving pictures are failing to interest people, in my opinion, largely because of what I shall call infantilism. They are playing down to the most juvenile type of intellect you can imagine. As a matter of fact, somebody said to me the other day that the moving pictures have now been developed for the average teen-ager of seventeen or eighteen. I fear that radio has ceased to be the force it once was. I note this trend in the major urban centres. It is ceasing to be the force it once was because it is constantly appealing to a lower and lower intellectual level. That may be a good thing or it may be a bad thing; I do not know. But I know that the interest in radio has definitely slackened-that is, shall we say, in the more or less intellectual side of radio-in the major cities or urban centres.

I now want to make an observation with regard to the report of the Massey commission. on this subject. The commission regarded with approbation an association known as the Canadian writers' committee. I was interested in this matter because I used to know some of the people who belonged to Canadian authors' guild. I tried to find out who this Canadian writers' committee was. All I could learn about them was that they were an ad hoc organization brought together apparently for the purpose of making this submission. As far as I could find out it consisted of Dr. Frank Scott, a man called Len Peterson and somebody called! Bissell working at the university of Toronto. Dr. Frank Scott is well known for his socialist views for which I respect him but with which I disagree. Len Peterson is a commentator on the C.B.C., and is employed more or less full time by that organization as a free-lance writer. I could not find anything about the third member of this so-called writers' committee.
It seems that the difficulty in accepting views advanced on this subject-and of course it would be the difficulty of any royal commission-is that they have not been able to get the opinion of the ordinary man in the street with regard to the whole question of radio. Perforce they have to accept, and do accept, the opinions of those who I suggest in this case are prejudiced witnesses, who have every right to their submission and every right to their prejudices, as each one of us has; but I disagree that they represent either Canadian writers or the Canadian reading public. These facts should be brought out. The problem is of very great importance.
The rural parts of Canada are very much more dependent upon and more interested in radio than are the urban parts. I think that would be borne out by any survey of the listening habits of the Canadian people. We have to be most careful in bringing down opinions on this extremely controversial subject. For example, I heard that when the federation of agriculture brief was given it had not been submitted to the general meeting; and as a matter of fact a man called Howard Prentice was refused the opportunity of being heard by the federation and by the committee because he disagreed with that brief. Therefore I suggest that when we are considering this whole matter of radio the report we have in front of us, while it is sincere, is nevertheless apt to be based on the opinions of prejudiced witnesses. Therefore it must be considered in that light.
I am not going into the question of private radio stations, because that has been dealt with very adequately by others. I do wish 94699-1211
Canadian Broadcasting Act to emphasize that unless the intellectual standard of radio is kept up, some fear that it will go the same way the moving pictures were going until they began to take hold of themselves, by basing its appeal on the adolescent mind and the undeveloped mentality. That is the greatest danger we face today in radio programs in Canada.


James Joseph McCann: Mr. Chairman, this discussion on second reading of Bill No. 17 has assumed a rather broader latitude than I had expected, although I have no criticism to offer of that in particular. It was thought that by referring this whole matter of radio broadcasting to a special committee perhaps time would be saved and there would be more complete examination of all matters having to do with radio.
The committee did have the advantage of information given to it by the officers of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, and of representations made by outside interests and by those who were interested in radio privately. Although it is not my intention to speak at length on the whole question of radio, because that has been dealt with pretty much in the abstract here yesterday and today, the submissions 1 made upon the resolution preceding the bill and upon second reading of the bill put forth as clearly as I could, and perhaps in as much detail as might be expected, the position of the government and of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, so it is not my intention to go into more detail and to make any kind of a lengthy speech.
At this time I do want to congratulate the committee on radio broadcasting on the excellent work they have done, and to thank them for their deliberations. It afforded an opportunity, as I said before, of getting in detail both the criticism and the suggestions of those who were interested in radio. During the years in which I have taken an interest in this particular subject I do not know that we have had a better committee than the one which examined into that subject this year. I am like the hon. member for Brandon who spoke today, who said that he found the work very interesting and very stimulating. That was exactly my reaction to it years ago on the first radio committee that I attended. I think that has been the reaction of some of those hon. members of the house who have sat on this and similar committees having to do with radio broadcasting. Therefore at this time I want to take the opportunity-and it may be the only opportunity I shall have-to say thanks to the members of the committee, and to commend them for the excellent work they have done.

Canadian Broadcasting Act
Among the things the radio committee did, which I think was of great advantage, was to visit Montreal and see our Radio Canada building. That was well worth-while. I think it was an eye-opener to the members of the committee to see the physical side of what goes into both television and sound broadcasting. It surely must have given them some tangible demonstration of what the costs are in radio, because, as was pointed out here yesterday, when you see a mobile unit for television with four cameras that cost in the neighbourhood of $100,000 you can well imagine what all the equipment costs. On the floor on which the mobile unit was located there was a million dollars worth of television equipment which was ordered by this country a year ago last May from the Marconi people in England. I was in their factory and saw some of it in the process of manufacture. When one sees a building of that type with its splendid studios, its great control board, the equipment and machines for making recordings, as well as all the other equipment, and couples with that the highly-paid officials, he can readily understand why the cost of radio, both sound radio and television, is as high as it is.
On December 4 the radio committee made its second report, at which time it reported Bill No. 17 to the house. The committee considered the bill carefully, and it has been reported to the house with only one slight amendment. The final report of the committee is expected shortly, and I am sure it will give expression to what have been the results of the deliberations of the committee, and will set out its recommendations.
The suggested changes in the act, with which we are now dealing, are those based upon the Massey report. Let me say at once that in my judgment whether we agree with it or not the Massey report is one of the finest, probably the finest report we have ever had. I say that because the commission went into great detail, took great pains to cover the whole country and to invite people to make submissions; and it did all these things to a much greater extent than any other commission we have ever had in this country dealing with radio.
Having set up the commission, and as a result of the representations made to it, the government is guided by those recommendations which go to form the report itself. I was surprised to hear the hon. member for Greenwood deal almost entirely with the Massey report. Evidently he is not very favourable to it. I hope there has been no rift between him and his friends. Perhaps he was only laying the basis for some friendly


family arguments over the Christmas season. He referred to this being the fifteenth anniversary of radio, and dates it back to 1936, when the Canadian Broadcasting Act was put into effect. He said it was a matter of regret that a former prime minister of this country and his government, who were in power from 1930 to 1935-and he was referring to Right Hon. R. B. Bennett-were not given credit for having implemented the report of the Aird commission. Well, about the only people I have heard casting any discredit upon that right hon. gentleman have been members of his own party. The reason they find themselves in the position they are in today is that they repudiated the political philosophy of that right hon. gentleman and his government, when they held office between 1930 and 1935. The hon. member would like to get away from that and start out on an entirely new basis.
The section in the Massey report dealing with television states:
In radio broadcasting Canada experimented with a purely commercial system before changing to a national system.
Right Hon. R. B. Bennett changed that system on the basis of the Aird report, which was made at that time. I suggest to the committee that no sensible leader of the government, no matter what party he might be leading, would have followed a different course. It was clearly indicated that that was the course in the best interests of the people of Canada, and that was the course the people would endorse and would follow: a policy of national ownership and a nationally operated radio system. So I say the difficulties are principally based on the fact that his own party at this time is not following what was laid down by Mr, Bennett at that time.
The growth of radio in Canada has not yet achieved all for which we might hope in a national system. I quote again from section 80 in the Massey commission's report, where they say:
It is still young. It has had to struggle against poverty, inexperience, and the physical obstacles of this difficult country, But, as we have suggested in part I and have stated here in language as clear and unambiguous as we can command, we are convinced that the existing Canadian system of broadcasting has served the country well in the past and offers the greatest hope of national unity and enlightenment in the future. We urge that the national broadcasting system be given the power and resources sufficient for its great national responsibilities.
Could there be any stronger recommendation than that? It is a recommendation, not made without deliberation, not made in haste,

but made by the top men of this country, investigating it after years of deliberation and study.
There have been a number of criticisms by several hon. members which perhaps were just and legitimate, but which I believe can be answered shortly. I think it was the hon. member for Eglinton who, referring to the Canadian association of broadcasters and the recommendation that we should have a regulatory body, was critical of our present system. I would point out to him that the evidence before the committee shows that the Canadian association of broadcasters has shifted its ground very much within the last few years. What they want now is a regulatory body only with reference to the technical aspects of radio, and that to come from the Department of Transport. I suggest there is nothing to gain if they are going to attempt to wreck the set-up in the Department of Transport, just as throughout the years they have attempted to break down the system we have had under the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.
The hon. member was critical, too, of our television policy. This afternoon he referred to the fact that applications for television licences had been made back as early as 1945.


Donald Methuen Fleming: They might have been before that, so far as I know.


James Joseph McCann: Well, some bright individual may have had an idea twenty years ago, or perhaps ten years ago, that a franchise would have some monetary value for him, and that television would come into being in this country; and for that reason might have put in an application. But, to go back even as far as 1945, I suggest such a person would not have had the slightest idea at that time what it would cost to set up television.
We have been criticized for being dilatory or slow in enunciating a policy and putting it into effect. I suggest that the action of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and the government in that regard has saved the people of this country millions of dollars. In 1945 or 1946 one could easily have formulated a policy and attempted to implement it, and the result would have been that what was purchased at that time would have been obsolete by this date. Three years ago I accompanied the governors of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to New York where we studied the matter of television. We were shown by National Broadcasting, Columbia and private interests what they had done. They told us that they had spent $50 million up to that date and that most of it had been
Canadian Broadcasting Act spent to no avail. We have profited by the progress which has been made in television.
As far as issuing of licences for television goes, I have been told in private conversation that not one single person or group of persons is prepared immediately to spend money to go into the development of a private television unit. It would cost at least $500,000 for a set-up, and any group would have to be prepared to spend probably another $500,000 before they would reach the operating stage. A further cause for delaying the progress we would like to have made has been the shortage of materials for transmitters, steel for towers and the other things that go into the building of a television station. All these are in short supply, and we are in no better position than private persons or enterprises in making application to the steel controller. We do not get any preference in that regard.
I should like to say a word with reference to the much discussed matter of controversial broadcasting. I am going to put on; record what I thought was a very good article which appeared in Saturday Night of December 15. The C.B.C., the Prime Minister and myself and I presume many members of parliament and of the government have received all kinds of correspondence with reference to the controversial broadcasts. A great many people objected to them, while many more commended the freedom of speech that had been allowed by the C.B.C. One is put in the position of deciding whether he should recommend closer censorship, or whether the freedom which has been exercised for years should be allowed to continue. This article reads:
This journal shares very fully the view, which is now being expressed by a good many organizations of national or provincial scope, that there should not be any further restrictions imposed by statute on the character of the material which may be sent out over the air on Canadian wavelengths, beyond those which have been in force ever since the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation was set up to regulate radio in Canada. These restrictions leave to the C.B.C. a very large freedom as to what it will broadcast and what it will not broadcast, and on the whole that freedom has been exercised for some fifteen years with great judgment and direction.
I think that is most significant. The article then goes on to discuss in some detail the broadcast given by Hoyle, the astrophysicist, and it has some criticism to offer with respect to that. It then continues:
But we do not for a moment suggest that the fact of our differing with the C.B.C. in this instance is a reason for fettering the C.B.C. for all time with a statutory prohibition against certain proscribed ideas, or still worse, against certain proscribed broadcasters.
We believe that there is a difference between radio and other forms of communication, and that the proposition that any and every idea has a

Canadian Broadcasting Act right to communication on the radio in the same way as it has a right to communication in print or in an assembly, provided only that it is not indecent, seditious, libelous or calculated to promote disorder, is untenable.
I agree with that. It goes on:
But we believe that parliament would be most unwise to attempt itself to distinguish between those ideas which may be broadcast and those which may not, and still more unwise to hand over a general power to do so to a board of censors whose chief concern would inevitably be to allow nothing on the air which could possibly be the object of any protest.
I believe that in connection with these controversial broadcasts there should be an opportunity for reply. I would think also that the broadcasters or commentators ought to have sufficiently good judgment to say nothing that would be either insulting or offensive to the Christian religious beliefs and sensibilities prevalent in this country. I think censorship to that extent might very well be employed. It is not very often that we have criticism of that type in connection with the C.B.C. I am bound to admit that in this particular instance probably something got over the air which it would have been better for the great majority of our people not to have been permitted.
This morning the hon. member for Kootenay West referred to the needs of the southern interior of British Columbia. I feel quite sure we can assure him that when this bill goes through and our financial position is better than it has been for a number of years it will be the policy of the C.B.C. to greatly expand its facilities and that part of British Columbia will be looked after. I do not know that there is anything to be gained by taking up further time that might well be given to a consideration of the details of the bill.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 2 to 5 inclusive agreed1 to.
On section 6-Grants.
Donald Methuen Fleming: This section raises the whole question of the financing of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. The section provides that power shall be given to the Minister of Finance to grant to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation out of the consolidated! revenue fund the sum of $4,750,000 in the present fiscal year and the sum of $6,250,000 in each of the next four fiscal years.
It will be recalled by the committee that a grant of $1,500,000 was made to the C.B.C. last spring so that if this section is adopted it will provide the C.B.C., along with the grant made last spring, with an annual grant
iMr. McCann.]

of $6,250,000 over a period of five years. This provision happens to tally with the recommendation of the Massey commission, to be found on page 293 of the report. They indicate that the corporation will annually require, in order to carry out its program of expansion and for other purposes, the sum of $14,200,000 in all. Paragraph 61 of the report in part reads:
The C.B.C. has stated that in order to maintain services even at their present level it requires about $3 million a year in addition to its current income of approximately $7,500,000. For the improvement and extension of its services, it requires another $2,200,000, making a total annual budget of about $12,700,000. If all the local and less desirable national commercial programs are dropped, the corporation will require an additional $1,500,000-some $14,200,000 in all.


James Joseph McCann: Why not finish the paragraph?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I do not think it is germane to my purpose. I referred to the fact that the section did happen to tally with the report. I am not interested in the balance of the section for the present purpose.
The income of the corporation during the past fiscal year was $8,301,000. The addition of $6,250,000 to that sum would give the corporation something close to $15 million of revenue in the present fiscal year. The commission did contemplate that the corporation would submit to some reduction of its commercial revehues as a result of the elimination of some of the commercial broadcasts.
The income for the fiscal year ended March 31,	1951, was drawn from three
sources. The first was licence fees, and I will give only round figures. The amount was $5,572,000. Then there was commercial broadcasting, $2,463,000; and miscellaneous, $266,000, or a total of $8,301,000. I am going to digress for a moment to draw attention to one feature of that statement of revenues. In his remarks a few moments ago the minister apparently sought to create the impression that Mr. Bennett, in fathering the Canadian Broadcasting Commission out of which the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation later grew, was committing himself and his party for all time to a nationally owned, nationally operated, national monopoly in radio broadcasting.
I do not think that is a fair interpretation at all of the views of Mr. Bennett. It is one thing to create a national system. It is quite another thing to say that there shall be on the one hand either no other type of broadcasting carried on in Canada or on the other hand that if broadcasting is permitted under other auspices, namely private auspices, the national system shall have the power of regulation, what together with the licensing powers amounts in fact to the power of life

and death over these other outlets for broadcasting. But let me point out this further fact that the Aird commission and the whole scheme of the Canadian Broadcasting Commission as conceived by Mr. Bennett rested upon the assumption that the commission would not go into the field of commercial broadcasting, that their programs would be free of commercial features, and that the commission would be dependent upon public moneys or licence fees for its income. With the approval of this government, however, there has been a steady departure from that basic principle of the original scheme of national broadcasting in Canada, and it is to little purpose indeed for the minister to picture the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation today as being the fulfilment of the dreams of Mr. Bennett on the one hand, and then shut his eyes to the fact that the financing of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation-yes, and in many respects the type of program it is giving-has departed very materially from the original conception of the Canadian Broadcasting Commission and national broadcasting in Canada.
I wish to offer some comments on the matter of the income of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.	It will have been
noticed that the C.B.C. at the present time is drawing approximately $21 million per annum from commercial broadcasting. The report of the Massey commission, which obviously commends itself to the government, recommends that the corporation should eliminate much of the revenue it is deriving at the present time from commercial broadcasting.
I should like to refer to page 291 of the report where the majority make this recommendation:
That the board of governors of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation refuse all commercial programs not acceptable in content and that they consider the possibility of eliminating some of the less desirable commercial programs now carried, and of replacing them by programs more appropriate to Canadian listeners.
The recommendation in the minority report of Dr. Arthur Surveyer at page 399 should commend itself to the house. He says:
There is no doubt that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation should be granted whatever amounts are needed to maintain an adequate service both in broadcasting and telecasting for the purpose of fulfilling the aims of the Canadian Broadcasting Act. Although the expenditures of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation appear reasonable when compared with those of the British Broadcasting Corporation, the commission does not know whether or not the operations of the corporation are efficient, nor if substantial savings could not be realized by entrusting the production of commercial programs to private producers.
That leads me to say that, far from there being no competition between the national system on the one hand and the private
Canadian Broadcasting Act stations on the other, there is very keen competition. You have very keen competition to the extent to which the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation permits competition on the part of those private stations which are its competitors. Competition for commercial revenues is direct and keen. Private stations have complained to the parliamentary committee that while they ask nothing of the Canadian taxpayer and must finance their operations entirely from their commercial revenues, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, on the other hand, while receiving the entire licence fee on receiving sets, nevertheless at the same time competes with them for revenue in this field of commercial broadcasting.
It should be clearly understood that if this substantial grant is to be made to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation it should be upon the condition attached to its recommendation by the Massey commission. That recommendation was that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation should be prepared to forgo a good deal of its present commercial broadcasting. It will be the right of the people of Canada if this grant is made to expect better programs on the C.B.C. and to expect fewer and less objectionable commercial features. I think that is the wish of the officials of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. I wish to say that in fairness to them, but it seems to me it must be clearly understood that if this house is going to vote this large additional income to the C.B.C. it must attach that condition. I point out to you, sir, that such a condition does not appear in this legislation. There is no suggestion in the bill as it appears before the house that a condition of the kind recommended by the Massey commission is attached to this grant of additional income.
I come to another of the principal sources of revenue to the corporation today, licence fees, which last year yielded an income of $5,572,000. This income was obtained from the $2.50 licence fee on 2,212,000-odd receiving stations in Canada. I say "receiving stations" because one should not regard a receiving station and a receiving set as synonymous. A person may have more than one receiving set at a receiving station without requiring more than one licence. I point out to you, sir, that if this section passes we are not only committing parliament to a principle but to a very definite figure by way of parliamentary grant. That carries with it implications which I consider are of very great importance. I suggest that now that parliament is committing itself to this principle the time has come for the elimination of that nuisance tax, the licence fee on receiving stations.
1898	HOUSE OF
Canadian Broadcasting Act I point out certain factors in relation to this $2.50 fee, some of which were the subject of evidence before the parliamentary committee. In the first place, whatever may have been the situation when that $2.50 licence fee was first imposed, I think it is a very different situation today. The fact of the matter is that today the benefits that are derived as a result of the operations of the C.B.C. bear no relationship to the fee. Everyone with a receiving set must pay that fee whether or not he listens to the programs of the C.B.C. The fee does not bear any relation to service.
In the second place the amount has no relationship to fact. It does not cover the cost of operation of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.
In the third place, and I wish to develop this point, the collections of this fee have been very troublesome. I do not believe one member in this house will have the temerity to say that collection is complete.
The Massey commission in its majority report had this to say at page 294:
The Department of Transport considers that the present method of collection is reasonably effective and thorough. However, if the figures of the dominion bureau of statistics are to be accepted, Canada's three and a half million private receiving sets which should be licensed ought to yield over eight and a half millions a year in licence fees instead of something over five million.
As was mentioned in the committee with regard to these licence fees, the fee is levied in terms of receiving stations and not simply in terms of receiving sets. There is a lot more in this discrepancy on which the Massey commission has placed its finger, however, than can be explained away simply by referring to the people who own more than one receiving set. I d'o not think the contention put forward by the officials of the Department of Transport charged with responsibility for the collection of this fee is very convincing when they say that collection is satisfactory. As I said a moment ago,
I do not believe there is a member in this house who will have the temerity to say there has been universal or 100 per cent collection of this particular nuisance tax.
How many people who ought to be paying this tax are not paying it? No one in this country can answer that question. Even amongst those from whom collection is being obtained great difficulty is being experienced. The principal official of the Department of Transport for this particular subject is Mr. Browne, controller of communications. In his testimony to the committee on December 6, he said there are 120,000 to 150,000 people in this country who never pay their licence fees until late in the year. If you refer to a table he filed with that committee you will 

find that there is a great deal of tardiness on the part of many of the people who do pay. For instance, last year in the months of April and May 47-2 per cent of those who eventually paid remitted their licence fees, yet the fee is payable on April 1. The percentages for the remaining months are as follows: June, 21-5 per cent; July, 8-6 per cent; August, 7-4 per cent; September 4-4 per cent; October, 4-1 per cent; November, 2-4 per cent; December, 1-5 per cent; January, 1-4 per cent; February, 0-7 per cent; March, 0-8 per	cent.	That is not	the kind	ofrecord that suggests	that this is	the sort	of
fee that is either collected easily or paid readily by those upon whom it is imposed.
I say to you, sir, that this is an extremely costly fee to collect. What would we in this house say if the Minister of National Revfenue came to us and	said	it cost him	over 12 percent to collect	the income tax,	or over	12
per cent to collect the excise tax? We would throw up our hands in horror at the very idea, and say there was something fundamentally wrong if it was costing that much to collect these taxes, and that we ought to re-examine the whole situation. The fact of the matter is that for years it has cost over 12 per cent on an average to collect this tax, and last year it cost 12-2 per cent of every cent that was collected. If that cost had been charged directly to the proceeds of the tax you would have realized a net of 87-8 per cent. I say this is a shockingly high cost of collection, and the house ought to face up to that fact.
This year parliament has appropriated over $700,000 just to provide for the collection of these fees from which a revenue of something like $5,600,000 is expected. Parliament is throwing a lot of good money away, in my submission, in seeking to collect a tax that is unpopular and that is extremely difficult to collect. As you know, some time ago it became necessary to send people out, supervisors and others, from door to door canvassing for licence fees. These people were paid on a commission basis. In the committee a member asked Mr. Browne why one should introduce the principle of commission into the collection, of taxes or fees imposed by parliament, a principle that would take us back to the abuses of the Roman empire. The answer was that when the department paid these people a salary they did not go out into the sparsely settled areas, but confined themselves to the built-up areas where it was comfortable to go about. I believe that is another factor which calls upon parliament to examine whether this nuisance tax ought to be continued any longer.

I think it would be interesting to the house to know that last year the government depended upon 346 house-to-house canvassers for 38-3 per cent of all that was collected on account of this nuisance tax.
The next factor in this connection which I should like to mention is the matter of prosecutions. This $2.50 licence fee is imposed by regulation pursuant to power given to the government under section 4 of the Radio Act. Many hon. members in this house, Mr. Chairman, may have forgotten that the further provision in section 4 of the Radio Act provides for the imposition of a fine of up to $50 or three months' imprisonment for any person failing to pay this fee. Just weigh that against the amount of the fee that is sought to be collected, and the difficulty in collecting it. The fact is, as has already been mentioned in this debate, that many people quite innocently do not know whether or not they have paid their fee. It is not something that comes to their mind like income tax returns. Many innocent people could easily overlook the payment of this licence fee. Yet any person who is in that position, however innocent he may be, is subject to a fine of $50 or three months' imprisonment.
Last year there were 13,830 prosecutions, and the result worked out in average figures in this way: The average fine was $3 and the average costs imposed $3, a total of $6.
The procedure in connection with prosecutions is very clumsy. A prosecution cannot be started locally without reference to Ottawa. At Ottawa a particular bureau in the Department of Transport sifts through these recommendations, with all the consequent delays. In the face of this situation, sir-an unpopular tax; a nuisance tax; a tax that is hard to collect; a tax that is not universally enforced and cannot be, I submit; a tax that has clumsy provisions attached to its enforcement -what did the Massey commission say? The Massey commission, made some comments on this subject and they criticized in the language I have used the present collection of tax. While the Massey commission did not come up with the kind of recommendation I think they should have brought in for the abolition of this tax in favour of the parliamentary grant, they nevertheless criticized in. the words I have used the present degree of enforcement.
In the light of the criticism contained in the majority report of the Massey commission I think it would interest many hon. members to know exactly what the Department of Transport now proposes. In the first place, sir, it proposes-as we were told by Mr. Browne in the committee on December 6-that there
Canadian Broadcasting Act should be an amendment of the Radio Act to provide for a minimum fine of say $10 for anyone found operating a private receiving station without a licence. Let us bear in mind what that means. It means that there will be no power left in the magistrate to decide that it has been a case of innocent oversight, a first offence, or a case simply for a nominal fine. In many cases the fines today are just fifty cents. It would thus become obligatory upon the magistrate, on summary conviction, to impose that minimum fine of $10. I ask the house if they are so wedded to that kind of licence fee that they are prepared to back up the Department of Transport in wanting to see conviction in a case of this kind punished by a minimum fine of $10. I think not.
The second proposal of the Department of Transport is that the Radio Act be further amended to eliminate some of the cumbersome procedure in connection with enforcement. That may be good if we are to continue with this present clumsy system. But I think there is a better way of meeting the needs of the situation; that is by doing away entirely with this nuisance tax.
The third proposal now being put forward by the Department of Transport as something designed to meet the needs of the situation was described before the committee by Mr. Browne on December 6. It involves the elimination of the house-to-house canvass, that source of revenue which produced 38.3 per cent of all the licence fees collected last year on account of receiving stations. In place of 346 people working full or part time in the field in the house-to-house canvass, the department proposes an increase in staff in the department, 42 people to be put in the field full time and 8 people to be added to the staff of the central records office at a cost to the department for the addition of 50 people to their staff, of about $100,000 per annum.
But that is not all. From the testimony of Mr. Browne it is evident that more hope is attached to their proposal to transfer the issuance of the receiving licences to the post offices to a greater extent than has ever been done hitherto. You are aware, sir, that at the present time the Department of Transport tries to issue or, if you like, to vend these licences through the post office. But Mr. Browne was frank enough to tell us in the committee that there has been much reluctance on the part of the post office and of individual post offices throughout the country to take on the task of collecting this $2.50 nuisance tax on behalf of the Department of Transport.
We are told that there are 1,600 staff post offices in Canada, 6,500 accounting post offices

Canadian Broadcasting Act and 5,000 non-accounting post offices. We are told that among the 1,600 staff post offices the carrying of these licences for those who may come in and seek to purchase them over the counter has become obligatory, but that on the part of the 6,500 accounting post offices the Department of Transport has found a great unwillingness to assume this task; and that in the case of the 5,000 non-accounting post offices there were, if you please, only 188 willing to take on this task at all. The other 4,800-odd simply refused to do so.
When the Department of Transport now proposes to look to the Post Office Department to take this unhappy task off their hands, it surely might have been well to ascertain in the first place whether the Posit Office Department was willing to do so. I am informed on good) authority, Mr. Chairman, that thie Post Office Department has not agreed to take on this task for the Department of Transport. Where does that leave uis? Let us forget for the moment the evidence of lack of co-operation between government departments or the attempt of one department to foist an unwelcome task on another government department. Does not this all point to the fact that this is a nuisance tax which ought to be eliminated? I have no doubt, sir, that if the committee heard the private opinions expressed by a good many government members there would not be much support left in this committee of the whole for the continued imposition of that $2.50 licence fee.
Let us look at some of the things that have been said by some of the more courageous members who had the temerity to express in the special committee an opinion on this subject. I refer now to the opinion expressed by the hon. member for Cariboo at the committee meeting of December 6. Mr. Browne made this comment:
. . . and they are the towns on which we concentrate first-
That is, on which the department concentrate their inspectors.
__when our prosecution campaign starts.
The hon. member for Cariboo said:
I am not urging you to prosecute them. I suggest it would be better to abolish the idea of a licence and to provide the money out of the general revenue because this is a public utility in which everybody shares and in which everybody enjoys the value; yet, according to your figures, half the people are not paying.


Pierre Gauthier: Listen to that now!
The Witness; I cannot comment on that. I have simply been given a job to do.


James Joseph McCann: All that is out of order. The committee is sitting.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I continue:


Mr. Richard;: Look at London. In 1949-50 the figure given is 20,809 whereas for 1950-51 the figure


is down to 16,692. That would indicate a drop of 4,000 licences in one year. Yet we all know that London is growing.
The Witness:	We hope that when we get this
additional staff we will be able to improve our licence issue still further.
Then the hon. member for Saint John-Albert came before the committee. He was not a member, but he came before the committee and pointed out the curious situation which results from the way in which the fee is levied at the present time. The fee becomes payable on the 1st of April each year. The department does not issue any licences until April 1. It is not the system followed by the provincial governments in issuing motor vehicle licences. Here the licence cannot be issued until April 1. As the hon. member for Saint John-Albert pointed out, technically everybody is in default when the post office opens on April 1.
Then, if you please, none other than the Minister of National Revenue, at that same meeting to which I have referred, made some comments in which I think the committee would be interested. He said, in reviewing the proposal of the Department of Transport to foist this unhappy task of collecting the $2.50 licence fee on to the reluctant Post Office Department:
But I would be against the policy-if it is the policy-of not paying so much attention to the house-to-house canvassers and trying to increase the matter of prosecution.
The matter of prosecution is a very disagreeable thing to carry on. It only antagonizes people against those who are doing it, and I do not think that it is ever productive of any great results.
That is the verdict, sir, of the responsible minister who has had more to do with radio broadcasting in this country than any other minister. That is his comment upon proposals for shifting the collection of this $2.50 licence fee on to the Post Office Department, and his comments on the results of prosecutions for non-payment of the $2.50 licence fee.
This section does not propose simply to make a parliamentary grant this year; it proposes to set up a parliamentary grant for a five-year period year by year. I have said that the section is good in so far as it recognizes the principle of making direct parliamentary grants to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation for its necessary purposes. It is sound to that extent, and to the extent to which the principle is sound, sir, I say to you it is then a condemnation in principle of the continued imposition of that $2.50 nuisance tax. If the principle of the parliamentary grant is sound, then it ought to be good enough for meeting all the needed revenues of the corporation. It is not, however, simply an annual grant, sir; it is a five-year grant that

we are asked to approve, and I for one say that the principle of a five-year grant in advance is not sound.
We have had abundant evidence in this debate, if indeed evidence were required, of the vital importance of preserving strict parliamentary control, as distinguished from governmental control, over the activities of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. When speaking on the resolution preceding the introduction of this bill several weeks ago 1 sought to urge that the principle of parliamentary control be vindicated in all circumstances with respect to radio broadcasting. There is not a danger that any one of us can conceive in this country, short of actual invasion by a totalitarian armed force, that would be a greater threat to democracy and freedom in Canada than for such a vitally important means of communication and dissemination of ideas and of shaping public thought as the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to be brought under the control of the government. Therefore I say, sir, that parliament must be vigilant at all times to ensure that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation be divorced from government control, and that parliamentary control and parliamentary interest in the affairs of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation be strictly and sedulously maintained.
I say to you that if parliament makes a five-year grant in advance, committing itself to such a policy and to such grants by statute, it is making a mistake. It is risking a weakening in that parliamentary control over the corporation which is so essential, and the value of which is recognized by the officers of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.
What seems to me should be the proper policy of parliament in this case is to make an annual grant to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to meet its needs. That will not prevent the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation from shaping its plans. I realize that plans cannot simply be circumscribed by any twelve-month period of time; but surely the board of governors of the corporation has enough confidence in parliament to know that parliament will make such provision as is required to meet the legitimate needs of the corporation. Sir, if the principle of five-year grants is sound, why not ten years? If the principle is sound with respect to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, why do we not apply it to the Canadian National Railways? We do not. We assert and preserve parliamentary control over the Canadian National Railways and their operations by insisting that parliament should, by annual grants, have an annual review to provide for the needs of that
Canadian Broadcasting Act corporation. Why should the same principle not be vindicated and preserved with respect to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation? Therefore I say to you that the proper method should be an annual grant to meet all the needs of the corporation, and that the item should appear in the estimates every year so that parliament will be acting consciously in making provision for the needs of the national system, and also so that the opportunity of discussing the affairs and reviewing the administration of the corporation every year will be guaranteed. It is not guaranteed here because we do not have a parliamentary committee set up every session. In view of the fact we have had one this session it may be unlikely that we will have one at the session of 1952; I do not know. But I do know, sir, that this year, as in so many years past, the report of the committee will come in too late for discussion. There will not be any opportunity given to the house for discussion of the report, and that is what will happen, it seems to me, in other future years even if you do have parliamentary committees, if this section is passed in its present form.
My final observation is this. Every one of us recognizes that broadcasting is going to cost money; that the kind of expansion which the officials of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation indicated in their very competent and willing review of their plans before the parliamentary committee is going to involve the expenditure of very large sums of money in these ensuing years. The grant contemplated by section 6 of this bill is not for television; it is simply for the expansion and development of sound broadcasting. The corporation will be looking to parliament to provide further funds for the development of television; and along with that we must bear in mind that up to the present -time at any rate the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has not been paying any taxes. It has not been paying any municipal taxes, even though the private stations with which it is competing directly for commercial revenues today have had to meet federal taxes, provincial taxes and municipal taxes.
Finally, sir, I say to you the issue that confronts the house now is one that I think is inescapable, because it is a challenge to the house. The issue is presented more clearly to the house with respect to the continuation of this $2.50 nuisance tax than on any occasion in any previous session; and if the house proceeds today to vindicate the principle of parliamentary grants then I say to you, sir, that it has destroyed any pretence of justification for a continuation of

Canadian Broadcasting Act that $2.50 licence fee. Far better that parliament should make the provision consciously, and do away with this nuisance tax.
To vindicate the policy of parliamentary control, sir, I move the following amendment:
That clause 6 of Bill 17 be amended by striking out all the words after the word "fifty-one" in line 7.
I point out to you, sir, that this will give to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation under this section $4,750,000 in this fiscal year. That will bring the direct parliamentary grants for this fiscal year to a total of $6,250,000, which is a sum substantially in excess of the amount the corporation can expend this year. It will provide for all their needs, for as much extension and expansion as they can possibly contemplate this year, and will leave them a substantial excess to carry over into the next fiscal year. But at the same time it will ensure the maintenance of parliamentary control with respect to the voting of parliamentary grants year by year in the future.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Chairman, I should like to make a few observations in support of what has been said by the hon. member for Eglinton. However, before doing so I should like to relieve the kindly concern which, I am told, was expressed by the Minister of National Revenue because I had the temerity to disagree with part of the Massey report. I would say to the minister that it so happens I have several friends on the commission, and that I have the very highest regard for the report. I think it was a very distinguished document. But I have not made it the keeper of my conscience and the decider of every question it happens to consider.
By curious coincidence, for the second time today I find myself in the position of disagreeing with it. But I can assure the minister, if it is of any interest to him, that if in due time the government cares to bring in a number of other things mentioned in that report, it would be clear that in respect of those things I find myself in agreement with the Massey report.
I shall continue my observations at eight o'clock.
At 6.15 p.m. the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at eight o'clock.
Clarence Decatur Howe: If I may have unanimous consent I should like to revert to motions in order to make an announcement regarding trade with the West Indies. I would move


that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again this day.
Section stands.
Progress reported.



ANNOUNCEMENT OF EXTENSIONS AND ADDITIONS TO THE BRITISH WEST INDIES TRADE LIBERALIZATION PLAN

Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, I may say that the timing of this announcement coincides with the timing of announcements being made in the United Kingdom and also in the British West Indies.
The United Kingdom has now authorized extensions and additions to the British West Indies trade liberalization plan, to take effect at the beginning of next year. Under this plan, limited quantities of traditional exports from dollar countries are being admitted to the markets of the British West Indies. It is estimated that some 650 firms have taken advantage of the present plan. The dollar value of the increased trade which will result from these new measures will not be large in total nor can it be estimated with any accuracy. For a number of Canadian exporters, however, it will provide a welcome opportunity to enter again into this trade. For others it will mean that increased quantities of their products will be admitted to those markets. All of this is definitely a step in the right direction. It is our great hope that further expansion will become possible in this trade in the future.
The British West Indies was the starting point for many of our manufacturers when they first looked abroad for export markets. There has been a tradition established of mutually advantageous trade. Because of the currency difficulties of the sterling area, British West Indian markets have unfortunately been closed to many of our goods since 1947. We have done our utmost in Canada, however, to provide a market for goods from the British West Indies, and from other countries in the sterling area, so that they might earn dollars with which to buy our goods. Canada has become a principal and substantial source of dollar earnings for these colonies. These efforts have obviously been recognized and appreciated in the United Kingdom, and I am happy to announce that we are now having increased opportunities being made available for Canadian goods in the British West Indies.
The government attaches great importance to our trade with the British West Indies. During 1950 we made strong representations to the United Kingdom for the creation of the

trade liberalization plan which was put into effect on January 1 of this year. Since then we have taken advantage of a number of opportunities to request the United Kingdom authorities to expand the existing arrangements. Members will recall that we had the honour in Ottawa in the early summer of being hosts to a visiting delegation of parliamentary representatives from various British West Indian colonies. The talks which took place at that time were useful to all parties concerned. When I visited London in September I made a special point of carrying the negotiations on this matter a further stage ahead, through direct contact with the appropriate ministers of the United Kingdom government.
The following statement is being made public today in the United Kingdom and Canada.
"Following discussions between the United Kingdom and Canadian governments and representatives of the British West Indies, which started early last summer, arrangements have now been worked out for extending and amending the existing scheme for 'token imports' into the British West Indies and Bahamas from Canada and the United States.
So far as the Canadian side is concerned, from 1st January, 1952, the list of items covered by the scheme has been expanded to include a much wider range of commodities, including food products, leather, metal, electrical and textile manufactures, etc. Also the percentages for exporters' quotas for most of these commodities will be raised from 33 J per cent to 40 per cent.
The expanded trade liberalization arrangements will, as from the 1st January, 1952, operate differently for British West Indies and Bahamas trade with the United States. Instead of a system of commodity quotas based on a percentage of past trade,, the West Indies and Bahamas will be able to licence additional imports from the United States up to a specified total value.
North American exports should also benefit from the authority recently given for colonial governments to introduce a system of world open general licences for certain commodities. These are mainly of a kind essential to colonial development. The list of goods to which open general licences may be applied covers for example a wide range of finished steel items 'and1 semi-manufactures of copper, zinc, and nickel but also includes dried, pickled, salted and smoked fish, onions, potatoes, certain animal feeding stuffs and jute goods.
Trade with British West Indies
In spite of the grave balance of payments position of the sterling area, it has been thought right to recognize in these arrangements the great importance of good commercial relations between the British West Indies and North America and they represent a substantial easing of import restrictions on goods exported by Canada and the United States."
I would like to conclude by tabling a more detailed statement, which has been prepared for the use of the press.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: 1 am
sure we have all heard with great satisfaction what the minister has said, although he has warned us that at the moment the quantities involved will not be very large. There is one thing I should like the minister to clarify. I am not sure whether he said but I think he implied that the sterling authorities were making available a sufficient number of dollars to take care of the trade which is contemplated. Am I right in that understanding?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes, that is a fact. Dollars will be provided from the sterling pool to pay for imports from Canada and the United States to the extent indicated by the announcement.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Even though this is only a beginning it seems to me most satisfactory that there should be such a beginning. I think we all remember the situation that existed in the West Indies some years ago which created almost fantastic difficulties. For instance, at that time if the Massey-Harris Company wanted to sell implements in the West Indies they had to be shipped from their Australian plant. We are glad to note what the minister has said, and I suppose we may hope also that the quantities which he has described as being merely token quantities may be greatly increased.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee of Bill No. 17, to amend the Canadian Broadcasting Act, 1936-Mr. McCann-Mr. Dion in the chair.
On section 6-Grants*
James MacKerras Macdonnell: Just when the committee rose I had started to make some brief remarks in support of the two points made very strongly and clearly by the hon. member for Eglinton. The hon. member criticized notably two matters. One had to do with section 6, in connection with which


Donald Methuen Fleming: Five years.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Five years altogether. Here again I should like to ask what is the reason for doing something which, so far as I can discover from a rather hasty perusal of the estimates, is utterly without

precedent and which-and I am trying to use moderate language-outrages one of the basic principles of our method of financing. I wish to read briefly from a British textbook on parliamentary grants which I think makes clear the fact that if this section is passed in its present form it goes flat in the face of our practice and the general British practice. I want to read from page 44 of a book by Durell on "Parliamentary Grants". I am going to read about half a page. I do not like reading, but I think this is a matter of importance. I want it on the record, and I think this will put it clearly on the record.


An hon. Member:: Can you read?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I understand it was once said of Lloyd George: Presumably he can read and write, though he gives no sign of ever having done either. The late Mr. J. W. Dafoe told me that one day at Paris he saw Mr. Lloyd George go into the assembly and pick up Le Temps. Somebody saw him reading it and said, "He can read, he can read French." It is lucky for hon. members that I am not reading French. I will read English. The passage is as follows:
The grants made by the House of Commons may be classified under two main heads: those which are authorized as recurring direct charges on the consolidated fund, and those which are met by annual or special vote for the supply services. Direct charges on the consolidated fund, which amount to about a third of the annual expenditure, are authorized by statute . . . When once granted they become in effect continuing grants to the treasury . . . They do not come up for annual review or criticism, and are to that extent removed from the control of the House of Commons after the statute has been passed. On the other hand it is at any time within the power of parliament to repeal such a statute and to transform the charge from a permanent one to an annual one . . . The fact, however, of the charges not being automatically brought under review necessarily withdraws them in a measure from the notice of parliament, and there is a disinclination consequently to make such permanent charges in any cases which could be provided for without detriment by an annual vote.
Then there is one short paragraph under the heading "Annual Estimates". It reads:
The remainder of the expenditure set forth in the budget is in the form of proposals which require to be voted for the service of the year, and it is in the exercise of its function of granting these supplies that the supreme control of the House of Commons is most evident.
I have gone through the estimates not meticulously but with what care I could in the time available, and so far as I can discover there is no case that in the least resembles this. We have statutory grants of course for the service of the debt, the payment of the salaries of cabinet ministers, subsidies, grants to the provinces and various thinks of that kind, but I cannot find anything which in the least resembles the kind of grant that we have before us. I am not able to

imagine any reason whatever why it cannot be dealt with in the ordinary way unless for the reason that those who are responsible do not want to face the proper test of coming forward each year. I do not imagine the minister will give that as a reason, but I hope he can give a much better reason than certainly I imagine he possibly can.
I have not had time to search through Hansard as I would have liked to, but I can well imagine the kind of things that would have been said in this house, and in particular by the leader of the opposition in the years between 1930 and 1935, if there had been any attempt to depart from a well recognized, well established, well understood and perfectly reasonable method of financing. I hope if the committee passes this section they will not do so in ignorance. If I am correct- and if I am not the minister will no doubt do his best to correct me-they will by so doing create an evil precedent which will no doubt be invoked again and again on other occasions. I still hope it may be possible that the minister will change his mind.


Mr. Hansell:: I shall only take a few minutes of the time of the committee, but I wish to say a word or two on this particular section of the bill. Before I deal with what I was intending to discuss I should like to add a word or two to what the hon. member for Eglinton said this afternoon with respect to the discontinuance of the radio licence fee. I do not know that I am especially fussy one way or the other, but I want to point out particularly that a number of people have advocated to the public the doing away with the licence fee. What the hon. member for Eglinton really is saying in principle is not that we will do away with the licence fee but that because it is a nuisance tax we will shift it into the general taxation policy of the country and not call it a licence fee. I mention this because I think we need to point out that during election campaigns many aspirants to membership in this house have appeared on election platforms giving the people the impression that if they are elected they will advocate doing away with the licence fee. To my mind that may be technically correct, but since that same amount of money will have to be made up in some way those people should be fair and add that everyone will be taxed accordingly. That much more money will have to be raised, and therefore all citizens will share in it whether or not they own a radio. One thing we must remember is that under the present system of licensing it is the person who owns the radio receiving set who pays the licence fee, and the person who does not own a radio set does not pay the licence fee. Under the system
Canadian Broadcasting Act advocated now, whether or not a person owned a radio set he would have to pay his share of the over-all taxation to make up that $5 million annually.
The point I really intended to make on this section which we are now asked to pass is that the people of Canada will have to pay to the C.B.C. about $30 million over a period of five years. Now, $30 million is a lot of money. In addition to that $30 million the C.B.C. also receives around $5 million per year from the radio licence fees. This will mean that by the end of that five-year period the C.B.C. will have received from the taxpayers of Canada about $55 million. I mention that for the purpose of making this further observation. During the radio committee's hearings a brief was presented by the Canadian association of broadcasters, which represents the bulk of the independent stations in Canada. During the sessions of the committee the spokesman for the association, Mr. Allard, whom no one will say was not an able witness, was asked this question: If the independent stations could so organize themselves and mobilize their forces as to give Canada a national system of radio, while at the same time giving the Canadian public the high standard of radio it now enjoys, could they do that without any cost to the taxpayer? Mr. Allard's answer was yes.
Before commenting any further, I take it that answer was given by a man who knew what he was talking about. I do not believe anyone on the committee would say that Mr. Allard did not speak with some considerable authority about radio. Yet his opinion was that private radio, by mobilizing these stations and its organizations, could give Canada a national system of radio such as it has today, at least without depreciating the calibre or quality of the programs and yet without any expense to the taxpayers. It is only fair that I should mention that the president of the board of governors appeared as a subsequent witness. I called Mr. Allard's answer to that question to his attention, and I asked Mr. Dunton if he had any comment to make. He said that his comment would be as terse as Mr. Allard's comment, but instead of saying yes he would say no. No one will doubt that Mr. Dunton also is qualified to speak on behalf of radio, at least on behalf of the C.B.C. He is in a position to know. What we have here is a conflict of opinion as between two men whom one would regard as radio experts.
My point is this. Even though there is some conflict of opinion, and even though Mr. Allard's statement might be regarded by some as exaggerated, nevertheless it was made. Even though we grant that statement might be exaggerated, the C.B.C. would still

Canadian Broadcasting Act have an advantage over Mr. Allard's proposal to the tune of at least the radio licence fees of $5 million a year. They would have that amount of money over and above what Mr. Allard said the independent stations in Canada could actually give Canada. I point that out because I think it is an observation we need to keep in mind.
Now, $5 million is a lot of money to spend on radio in one year, expecially when radio is a competitive business and the C.B.C. is in the commercial field. The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation say they have to have more than that. They have to have an additional $6 million. The people of Canada should know that they are paying $5 million a year in radio licence fees as a straight gift to the C.B.C. It is an amount that they have-I was going to say to play with, but that might be too loose an expression-but they have that much leeway over and above what the independent stations would need. Then there is another point, and it may be a meagre point. The independent stations would still have to pay their taxes, while the C.B.C. today is largely free of taxation andt has that advantage over the independent stations.
The bill, of course, says the taxpayer must not only pay the $5 million in licence fees; he must pay another $6 million a year. I point out that observation. Personally I should like to see the C.B.C. develop just as far as it is possible for them to develop. But if the C.B.C. were a private corporation charged with the responsibility of giving Canada the standard of radio that is given today, I am quite certain that as a private corporation they could get along with far less than an additional amount of about $11 million a year which they are asking from the taxpayers. I say that in the light of the fact that we have one man's opinion to the effect that if radio were in private hands, they could do it without any cost to the taxpayers whatsoever.


Mr. Jones:: I should like to say a few words in connection with this bill that is before us. I disagree with many of the statements made about the C.B.C. because I still think that, for $2.50 a year, we have the best value obtainable with respect to any commodity in Canada.


Mr. Fulton:: But we do not pay only $2.50.


Owen Lewis Jones: I believe the C.B.C. offers the best value on the North American continent. I do not mind paying $2.50 for the service that is rendered to my household in connection with the radio, but I feel that it is unfair to charge people in areas that cannot get the service the same fee charged in the ones that
[Mr. Hansell.l

have it; and that is the point I wish to make tonight. We have ten or twelve areas in the whole dominion that cannot get C.B.C. service, I understand; and one of them is the Grand Forks-Greenwood area. The only service the people in that area can get, is provided by United States stations; but they are still compelled to pay the $2.50 licence fee, and they are still subject to prosecution by the government if they do not pay that $2.50.
I should like to suggest to the government that in areas where the service cannot be received and where they are not rendering any service the fee be forgotten or abolished, and that definitely no prosecution should take place until such time as booster stations can be established in those areas to give the service the people are entitled to have. I would suggest that a portion of the money we are now voting to the C.B.C. be allotted especially to those areas that do not now get the service. Otherwise I feel that the C.B.C. is the logical and the proper outlet for Canadian programs and that it should, as far as possible, get into every corner of this dominion. But when we have a corner that has to rely on United States stations for service, my contention is that we have no right to collect a fee from the people in that area. I would suggest that the government consider this point and possibly abolish the fee in such an area until such time as these booster stations can be established.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I wish to say just a few words against the amendment moved by the hon. member for Eglinton. The effects of the amendment would be to grant to the C.B.C. the amount of money provided in this section of the act for this year, but to leave for decision in each of the next four or five years, as they come along, the granting of money for those future years. So far as our attitude towards the C.B.C. is concerned I feel that, to use the words of the hon. member for Greenwood in connection with another argument, we should let them get on with the job they have to do. To hold over their heads the uncertainty as to whether or not this money is to be available for the period of the next four or five years is, I feel, to cramp their style in their effort to give Canada the very best in the field of radio service.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Certainly.


Donald Methuen Fleming: By parity of reasoning does the hon. member not think he is cramping the style of the Canadian National Railways

by not providing them with a sufficient amount, for a period of five years in advance, to meet their recurring annual deficits?


Mr. Hees:: Well said.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Despite the interjection of the hon. member for Broadview to his colleague that it was well said, I think there is a very real difference. In the case of the Canadian National Railways we took over a series of defunct private lines which were already bankrupt, and we have been saddled with a capitalization which is completely false. That is the main reason for the deficits we have to deal with year by year.
As for the C.B.C., we have here a policy which a parliament of Canada has sought to initiate; and I echo the sentiments of those who have already recalled the fact that the policy of public ownership and control of radio had its origin during the days when R. B. Bennett was prime minister of this country. It is in pursuit of a policy which parliament has initiated that we are spending money on radio; and I think it is a wise expenditure.
As hon. members of the committee know, I could expand that idea; but I will leave it at that. I think that for the good of the C.B.C. and for the good of radio in Canada we should settle this question for the period of the next four or five years.
The other point on which I wish to comment is this. I was slightly startled at the difficulty the hon. member for Greenwood said he had in finding other examples of this practice in the estimates. He admitted that his examination, although not meticulous, was as careful as it could be in the time at his disposal. I think I have had less time, because it is only since he spoke that I have had the chance to go through the estimates to see whether or not there are other cases where, by statute, we provide for annual grants. The one that I would first of all draw to the attention of the hon. member for Greenwood is the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act under which, for a number of years, annual payments have been made in pursuance of the provisions of that act.


Edmund Davie Fulton: It has been amended two or three times.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes, that is so. As the hon. member for Greenwood says, on the basis of his quotations from the book he had in his hand, that can be done with statutes of this kind. The railway grade crossing fund is another. That statute provides for the annual payments, on terms and conditions laid down by parliament. The hon. member mentioned a large number of statutes that provide for the financing and the re-financing
Canadian Broadcasting Act of the public debt, the redemption and the transfer of the public debt, the cost of issuing new loans and so on. All that financial conglomeration is covered in statutes which provide for the necessary annual payments.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: All debt.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is true that these items are debt, but not the other items to which I have referred. Neither can it be called debt in respect of the items listed on page 18 of the current year's estimates, where we have a list of the subsidies and other payments to provinces. There are two sets of them there. Statutes have been passed which provide for those annual payments.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I mentioned them.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Similarly there are statutory payments with respect to the various superannuation funds. There is statutory provision for the annual payment of a fishing bounty and of coal subsidies; there is statutory provision for annual payments to the national battlefields commission; and there is on the statute books a provision-with which we all agree-for annual payments in respect of the trans-Canada highway.


Edmund Davie Fulton: You win.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I hear the hon. member for Kamloops saying that I win. Thank you. I shall sit down.


James Joseph McCann: The matter under discussion at the present time has to do with the amendment of the hon. member for Eglinton with reference to the new revenue arrangements for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, and these are in line with the recommendations of the commission. Let me point out that they provide for the payment to the corporation of a fixed sum of $6,250,000 each year for a period of five years. It is estimated that these payments, together with the receipts from the receiving licence fees and commercial operations, will bring the annual revenue of the corporation to about the equivalent of one dollar per head of the population of Canada. This is the amount which, in the opinion of the commission, will be needed by the national broadcasting system to maintain its services and carry out some necessary improvements in the five-year period.
I should like to point out that the commission recommended the annual fee for radio licensed sets be maintained at its present level, but that a more effective method of collection be devised.
The hon. member has issued a challenge to give reasons why this policy should be followed. I accept this challenge immediately,

Canadian Broadcasting Act and I think probably I can free his mind of any objection he might have. It has been suggested by him and by other hon. members that payments should not be set now by statute for a five-year period, but should be voted annually by parliament. That is the gist of the amendment. The chief argument for such an annual vote seemed to be that it would provide parliament each year with an opportunity to review the affairs of the C.B.C. I should like to say that I for one am in favour of frequent reviews by parliament of the matters and affairs of the corporation. Not to nay knowledge has a request for the annual setting up of a committee on radio broadcasting been denied. It is true that it has not been held every year, but as far as my memory goes it has never been denied when it has been requested.
I think it is a good thing that every year, or every year it seems fit, this house should appoint a committee for this purpose. With the appointment of such a committee there is ample opportunity for discussion by the whole house of the activities of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, its aims and objectives.
I believe there are two strong arguments against the annual vote of money for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. The first I think was well put by the royal commission itself when it said:
There are, however, serious objections to an annual grant to be voted by parliament. Although other essential government services depend on an annual vote, it is so important to keep the national radio free from the possibility of political influence that its income should not depend annually on direct action by the government of the day.
I have heard expressed in this house countless times, when radio matters were up, the fear, the accusation and the challenge that the government was interfering politically with the operations of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. I think another important principle is involved here, with which I thought hon. members on the opposition side of the house would agree. They have stated that they are in agreement with us on insistence that the activities of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation should not come under the direct influence of the government of the day. Under the provisions of the bill before the committee there would be no question of the government having influence on the operations of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation through the power of proposing votes of money for operating purposes each year. As I say, however, I believe that although payments to the corporation from public funds will not be voted annually, parliament will still have plenty


of opportunity to examine the affairs of the corporation to which it is directly responsible, and I think should do so.
The second reason for a fixed sum for a period of five years is that it will enable the corporation to make proper plans on a reasonably long-term basis. When the corporation was set up by parliament it was the idea that it should manage its affairs on a businesslike basis, following as closely as possible the methods of private operations, as is necessary in the field of broadcasting.
The hon. gentleman made reference to the fact that this was not done in the days of the Bennett government from 1930 to 1935. No, certainly it was not. Let me draw the attention of the committee to the fact that in the annual statement of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation it was not until 1946 that it was necessary to secure a loan that still remains unpaid. There were loans on many occasions during the period from 1932 to 1946, but every one of those loans was repaid by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. They were repaid not by taxes on the general public but by the people who were served and through their annual receiving set fee and the fees of private stations. They were able to save enough money out of that to redeem those loans.


Donald Methuen Fleming: And the commercial broadcasts.


James Joseph McCann: And the commercial broadcasts; exactly. To operate in a businesslike way the corporation needs to make a good estimate of its income ahead and then plan its activities and manage its affairs accordingly. Let me point out to this committee that there are a lot of circumstances nobody can foresee in the management of a corporation of this type. I will just give you two or three instances.


Gordon Graydon: In five years, too.


James Joseph McCann: Yes, in five years, too; but even in one year. Take, for instance, the amount of money it cost the C.B.C. this year on account of the visit of Their Royal Highnesses. That was a costly job. Then there is the Korean war and the service we are giving there, the service to the boys over there, the programs, and the reporting to the people of Canada on the activities of our forces in Korea. In that connection we shall have to set up and pay for transmission of programs to the forces that are in Germany at the present time.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: It is worth it.


James Joseph McCann: I do not think that broadcasting is the kind of activity for which estimates can be worked out each year in

the same way they can for government departments. In broadcasting, particularly in Canada, there are-and very probably there always will be-many demands from different sections of the public for more of something, particularly in the program field where there are many different opinions about what expenditures are necessary.
It seems to me that the sensible thing for parliament to do is to tell the corporation what its sources of revenue will be for the next five years, and set a reasonable amount in relation to the economy of the country. Then it is the responsibility of the corporation, which will report here yearly, to spend that money to the greatest possible advantage, subject always to a review by parliament.
The hon. member for Yale spoke with reference to the services in the particular district in which he resides. I admit immediately that his district is entitled to better services, and I promise that it will get better services if the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has the money with which to give them. This is all a matter of finance. The physical part of it can be attended to. There are no technical difficulties in the way of giving better services, but because of the fact that the C.B.C. has not had sufficient revenue it has not been able to give the services to several communities to which these people are entitled.


Mr. Sinnoit:: Mr. Chairman, as a member of this house I think I have the right to say a few words. After listening to the arguments pro and con this Bill No. 17, since it was introduced yesterday, I cannot help but feel that many hon. members have not given it earnest study. Having listened to the minister answer some of the members, I think I am in a better position to judge what has been said. I think we should thank the chairman and members of the committee who have worked diligently and hard.
However, I was in sympathy with what was said by the hon. member for Eglinton. His speech proved to me that he has given study to matters connected with the C.B.C. There is merit in what he said about abolishing the radio fee. The hon. member for Cape Breton South also gave a very good account of himself in this regard. I feel I am forced to my feet tonight, because a resolution was passed in November by the council of my home municipality and forwarded to the Minister of Transport. In that resolution they stated their objection to the radio licence fees.


Mr. Harkness:: What municipal council was that?
Canadian Broadcasting Act


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: If you happen to go through my constituency some time, get off the train and see for yourself.


Gordon Graydon: Good old Brokenhead.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The train does not stop there.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: Not only the train stops there, but all the buses.


Gordon Graydon: You flag her down.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: I do not think the country as a whole would have any objection to taking out of the consolidated revenue fund the amount now collected in licence fees. .It would be spread more evenly throughout the country than it is today. As was pointed out this evening by the hon. member for Yale, parts of the country are paying radio licence fees but are not receiving a proper service. I know there are many homes in the city where one licence fee is paid but where there are three or four radios.
In my view the method of collecting licence fees is a costly one. I would ask the minister at this point how much it costs to collect those fees, how many men are engaged on the job, and how the number is distributed among the different provinces.


Gordon Graydon: A tough question.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: I believe if there were a
plebiscite in Canada this troublesome licence fee would be abolished, because the people in my district, certainly, hold the same view that has been expressed by other hon. members tonight. Through neglect, or for some other reason, people forget to renew their licences. Then, first thing they know, an inspector comes around and it costs them $10. It is such a niggardly sum that I suggest the only fair thing to do is to collect the money through the consolidated revenue fund rather than as individual licence fees.


The Chairman:: The question is on the
amendment of the hon. member for Eglinton. Shall the amendment carry?
Amendment (Mr. Fleming) negatived: Yeas, 28; nays, 55.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: I declare the amendment lost.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 7-Regulations by the corporation.
James Joseph McCann: There is an amendment to be made to subsection 2 at line 27. I will ask my colleague, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, to move the amendment.


Mr. Harris (Grey-Bruce):: I move:
That subclause 2 of clause 7 of the bill be amended by adding at the ninth line after the words "three months" the following words:

Canadian Broadcasting Act
"but such order shall not be effective until the expiration of ten days after the making thereof."


James Joseph McCann: If hon. members will look at the section they will see that it has to do with the suspension of licences. The subsection reads:
In case of any alleged violation or non-observance by a private station of the regulations made by the corporation under this section, the corporation may, after notice has been given to the licensee of the alleged violation or non-observance and an opportunity afforded to the licensee to be heard, order that the licence of such private station be suspended for a period not exceeding three months.
And then the words of the amendment come in:
-but such order shall not be effective until the expiration of ten days after the making thereof-
And then it continues:
-and any such order shall be forwarded to the Minister of Transport who shall forthwith communicate the same to the licensee and shall take such steps as may be necessary to carry out the terms of such order.
This means that before an order is actually executed there is a term of grace, if one may so describe it, for a period of ten days, before it goes into effect.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: Order. It appears to me the amendment has already been made in committee.


James Joseph McCann: Yes, it has been made in committee.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: Then I shall put the section as amended in committee. Shall section 7 as amended in committee carry?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, are you
putting the first subsection?


John George Diefenbaker: I do not understand
what your ruling was.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: There is no ruling. I am explaining that the amendment has already been made in committee. I have it before me, as made in committee, and I have put the subsection as it was amended in the committee.


James Joseph McCann: Mr. Chairman, this has to do with section 7. Would you be good enough to call subsection 1 first. Subsection 2 is the part that is amended.
Subsection 1 agreed to.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: Is subsection 2 as amended in committee agreed to?


John George Diefenbaker: I wish to refer to subsections 6 and 7, which are set out in subsection 2 of section 7. I shall not repeat the argument made this afternoon, that one of the matters respecting which there has been much criticism generally throughout the country has been the fact that in the

relationship prevailing as between the corporation and the private stations no provision is made for the adjudication of disputes as between the corporation and the private stations. Indeed the corporation is in the position of making regulations, making the law as it were, interpreting the law and deciding on conflicts or disagreements as between the corporation and the private stations.
Many of us have advocated the setting up of a board similar to the board of transport commissioners in order to assure that as between the corporation and the private stations there will be a measure of equity, and the administration of justice will be preserved. However, that has not been accepted. Apparently with a desire to go part of the way provision is made in subsection 7 of section 7 that where the corporation orders the suspension of the licence of a private station under subsection 6, the licensee may by leave of a judge of the Exchequer Court of Canada appeal against such order to the said court on any question of law.
That right of appeal to the exchequer court is limited and circumscribed to such an extent as to be meaningless and ineffectual to all intents and purposes. It covers only the right of a private station to aDpeal when its licence is suspended or cancelled, only to leave, and onlv in the event that a question of law is involved.
I am not saying at the moment that there are cases where prejudice or bias would enter into the determination by the corporation, ais to whether a private station should not have its licence suspended. As it now stands this section will have the effect of continuing in the corporation its psychological power of interfering with any particular private station one might name; and that private station will be in the position, if it does anything that is contrary to the regulations of the corporation, of being subject to the cancellation or abrogation or suspension of its licence. It would have no appeal. If there is bias or prejudice in the cancellation of the licence there would be no right of appeal. There is only a right of appeal, regardless of what the equities or facts may be, provided there has been a mistake in law or provided a point of law is at issue as between the corporation and the private station.
In order to provide an appeal on fact as well as on law in connection with all orders made by the C.B.C., I move, seconded by the hon. member for Huron North (Mr. Cardiff):
That subsection 7 of section 7 be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"Any person affected by any order, direction or ruling of the corporation may appeal to the Exchequer Court of Canada against such order, direction

or ruling on any question of law or fact or mixed question of law and fact, and the said court may stay the operation of such order, direction or ruling pending its final decision and said court may affirm, alter or rescind the order, direction or ruling appealed from."
Under that amendment the effect would be that if the C.B.C. made an order or a ruling as against a private station under which that station felt aggrieved, it would have the right to appeal to the exchequer court. While that court is of lower jurisdiction than the Supreme Court of Canada in general, it is composed of men who have the necessary judicial capacity to determine whether or not an order that has been made is fair and reasonable or whether it is one that is inequitable, unjust and unjustifiable.
This amendment would provide for an appeal by the private station, but it would in no way weaken the C.B.C. After all the stand of the corporation is that it in no way does anything that is unjust to the private stations. If it does not, it has nothing to worry about as to the right of appeal. If it does, being in the position of a competitor, as was brought out this afternoon, by reason of both the corporation and the private broadcasting company being engaged in an endeavour to secure advertising, then in order to assure justice the private station surely should have the right of recourse to the courts.
It is all very well to say that the corporation will not do wrong and does not do wrong. There is no court, except the final court, in any land that ascribes to itself infallibility in its judgments or decisions. Courts make mistakes; that is why there are appeal courts. Surely we are not going to ascribe to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation a higher degree of infallibility than the courts possess, particularly when in many cases its judgment is based on a complaint or on a subject of controversy with its competitor, the private station.
While this amendment does not suggest the setting up of an independent body such as we on this side of the house have advocated over the years, one in the nature of the board of transport commissioners which adjudicates as between the government owned railroad and the privately owned railroad, it would provide, first, an alternative to such a board and, second, the assurance that both the C.B.C. and the private broadcasting company as co-litigants in a proceeding before the court would be assured of justice and at the same time any suggestion of bias, prejudice, intimidation or the psychological effect of the private company being subject to the control of the C.B.C., both as a competitor and in an adjudicating position, would be removed.
Canadian Broadcasting Act
On the face of it this amendment would remove any and every possible cause of complaint. It would assure justice. It would preserve the rule of law. It would maintain a relationship between the corporation and the private broadcasting companies that would inure to the benefit of broadcasting in Canada.
Amendment (Mr. Diefenbaker) negatived: Yeas, 27; nays, 60.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: I declare the amendment lost. Shall the section carry?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Before it carries, I was not a member of the radio committee and probably the question I am going to ask was brought up before, but I should like to ask the minister why the word "alleged" is introduced in line 21. The clause now reads:
In case of any alleged violation or non-observance by a private station of the regulations made by the corporation under this section, the corporation may, after notice has been given to the licensee of the alleged violation or non-observance and an opportunity afforded to the licensee to be heard . . .
The corporation may then suspend the licence. I should think the suspension of the licence of a private radio station is the most stringent action that could be taken against it. As a matter of fact it puts the private station out of business. It would seem to me that before a private station is put out of business there certainly should be a proved case of violation or non-observance, and that an alleged violation should not be good enough. As the clause now reads it would seem to me all that is necessary is for somebody to allege that a violation has taken place; and if the private station does not produce proof, which may be very difficult for it to do, that it has not been guilty of a violation then its licence is suspended. I should like to know why it was felt necessary to introduce the word "alleged". It seems to me it is entirely unnecessary, and puts the private station in an almost hopeless position. In other words it goes directly contrary to all our usually accepted ideas of the law, namely that a person accused must be proven guilty. In this case the person accused has to prove that he is not guilty, otherwise he loses his licence.


James Joseph McCann: As I see it, if the clause read "in case of any violation or non-observance" it would really be taking for granted that there had been an actual violation and would be prejudging the matter. When it is worded "alleged violation" the licensee is given an opportunity to be heard.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The licensee surely had an opportunity to be heard anyway. I do not see that the minister has given an explanation for introducing the word "alleged". In

Canadian Broadcasting Act the act as it existed before the word "alleged" was not there. The clause merely read, "in case of any violation or non-observance". Apparently it is now proposed that it shall read "alleged violation". Why should it not be a proved violation? Why should the word "alleged" be inserted? As far as I can see it is for the specific purpose of putting the person against whom the violation is alleged at a disadvantage. It puts him in the position where he has to prove his innocence rather than leaving it, as has always been the case under our law, that the people alleging the crime or violation must prove that he is guilty.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: Shall the clause carry?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Oh, no, the minister has not explained it.


James Joseph McCann: I have explained it but the hon. member does not understand it.


An hon. Member:: And nobody else.


James Joseph McCann: The hon. member is not a lawyer and neither am I. There is a great difference between a violation and an alleged violation. If I say that the hon. member violated a law or regulation I make an accusation, but if I say that I allege he has done so I am putting the onus on him to prove that he has not.


Douglas Scott Harkness: That is exactly what I have been saying. The very point I have been making is that a private station should not be put in the position of having to prove its innocence.


Edmund Davie Fulton: You had better ask the Prime Minister to explain it.


Douglas Scott Harkness: It is one of the tenets of our law that an accused person must be proved guilty, and it should apply here as in nearly every other case.


Mr. Cannon:: If I may put in a word By way of explanation-


Douglas Scott Harkness: The minister's explanation is really the foundation of what I have been saying.


Charles-Arthur Dumoulin Cannon: -the words "alleged violation" in the first line of the clause refer to the accusation, to the violation of which they may be accused; but that is before any inquiry has been made. If the hon. member will read the whole clause he will see that it is as follows:
In case of any alleged violation or non-observance by a private station of the regulations made by the corporation under this section, the corporation may, after notice has been given to the licensee of the alleged violation . . .


They give him notice so that he may defend himself, and at that time it is only an alleged violation. Before notice has been given it cannot be anything more than an alleged violation. That is why the word "alleged" was added in the first line, so there will be concurrence with what comes afterwards. That is the simple explanation. Before there has been an inquiry and before any investigation has been made into the matter there can only be an alleged violation.


Douglas Scott Harkness: May I ask the hon. member for Iles-de-la-Madeleine if, in spite of his explanation, it still does not leave the situation such that a person against whom a violation has been alleged has to prove himself innocent?


Charles-Arthur Dumoulin Cannon: No, it does not mean that, not at all. In any case in which an accusation is made the fact that an inquiry has to be made into the accusation does not mean that the person accused has to prove himself innocent. It means that the person making the accusation has to prove the accusation. It is the same thing here. If there is an alleged violation an inquiry is made and the corporation making the accusation has to prove that a violation has taken place. Until it is proved it is an alleged violation.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The explanation of the hon. member for Iles-de-la-Madeleine is the exact opposite of what the minister said. Which is right? Am I to take the minister's word for this or-


James Joseph McCann: If it suits the hon. member any better I will withdraw my explanation.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 8-Repeal.
Donald Methuen Fleming: I think you will find, Mr. Chairman, that in the report of the committee there is a submission with regard to clause 8. It was represented to the committee that there was no intention of removing section 23 of the broadcasting act from the statute books of Canada but simply to transfer it from the broadcasting act to the Radio Act. If you examine the report of the special committee on radio broadcasting you will see that in reporting the bill they indicate they have done so on the footing that this section is to be re-enacted in the Radio Act, and they so recommend. I think it should be clearly stated to the house that section 8 will not be brought into effect until a corresponding provision has been enacted by parliament by way of addition to the present provisions of the Radio Act.

You will observe, Mr. Chairman, that subsection 2 of section 8 provides that subsection 1 shall come into force on a day to be fixed by proclamation of the governor in council. The committee was informed that section was inserted with a view to deferring the coming into force of subsection 1, to repeal section 23 of the broadcasting act, until such time as the section could be reenacted in the Radio Act. I think we should have on the record now formal assurance from the government that section 8 of this bill repealing section 23 of the broadcasting act will not be brought into force and effect until the same or an equivalent provision has been enacted by parliament to become a part of the Radio Act.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: Shall the clause carry?


Donald Methuen Fleming: No.


James Joseph McCann: The information we have- and I think the hon. member heard it at the time-is that the officer of the transport department did say that it was the intention to re-enact this provision in the Radio Act in practically the same terms. Is that not correct?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes. It is in the light of that information that I ask now that assurance be given that this section 8 of the bill will not be proclaimed. In other words, that section 23 of the broadcasting act will not be repealed until such time as the equivalent provision has been enacted into the Radio Act.


James Joseph McCann: I think we can give that assurance.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 9-Application to be referred to corporation.
William Joseph Browne: In making an application for a licence, is there a public hearing?


James Joseph McCann: Yes, there is.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


Walter Edward Harris: the second reading of Bill No. 41, to amend the Dominion Elections Act, 1938, and to change its title to the Canada Elections Act.
Dominion Elections Act


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Having been a member of the elections act committee, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a few observations at this stage. Before so doing I must gently chide the genial Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier) for some remarks he made last night when he was informing us of the business of the house. The minister said:
Tomorrow we will continue the consideration of Bill No. 17, to amend the Canadian Broadcasting Act, 1936, and then a list of small bills: Bill No. 41, to amend the Dominion Elections Act . . .
I am quite sure this house does not consider this a small bill. It is not small in physical size, because it contains 50 pages. It is not small in content because it contains a great deal of material which is the result of much study on the part of the committee. It is not small in importance because it is the statutory provision governing the election of members to this house. I am sure it is not a small bill in any sense of the word so far' as hon. members of this house are concerned.
I want to say that I have enjoyed working on the elections committee, both during the last session and this session. I particularly appreciate the non-partisan approach of the members of the committee in giving consideration to this very important legislation. The committee went through the act thoroughly from beginning to end. First of all we received the advice and suggestions of the chief electoral officer, Mr. Castonguay, as his experience had indicated there should be technical and other changes. Then the hon. members of this house presented to the committee the results of their personal experience, and their knowledge of conditions in various parts of Canada. I am sure the combination of the experience of the chief electoral officer and the experience of the members resulted in satisfactory amendments to this act.
Before proceeding with the sections of the act with which I wish to deal this evening, I do wish to pay a tribute to our chief electoral officer, Mr. Castonguay. I was very much impressed with his knowledge of the act and the completely detached and objective way in which he carries out his duties. Without doubt the majority of Canadians believe the chief electoral officer is some part of parliament's administrative machinery. He is not necessarily a personality they know. I am sure if they realized the objective way and the spirit in which our chief electoral officer carries out his duties they would have a very high appreciation of the great function he performs in a parliamentary democracy.

Doviinion Elections Act
We in this group consider this bill generally satisfactory. We believe it is a most important measure because it is the foundation upon which the machinery of democracy functions. The other day I read newspaper comments concerning the limited knowledge and information of university students about the working of our democracy. They were asked who the Prime Minister of Canada was, and so on, and it was obvious from these newspaper reports that a lot of university students do not know who the Prime Minister of Canada is. These students lack other information relating to this house. I believe this indicates some lack in our educational system. In my, opinion every high school student in Canada should be taught the terms of the British North America Act. In learning those terms the student would have a complete knowledge of constitutional developments in Canada, and of Canadian history. I believe everyone should have a thorough understanding of the Canadian Citizenship Act and of the elections act. Those three acts are fundamental and must be understood by a large percentage of our people if they are going to have a proper appreciation of the democracy we enjoy.
I am going to devote the rest of my remarks, Mr. Speaker, to a subject about which I am quite concerned, and about which a proportion of the constituents I represent are concerned. According to the elections act now, and the provincial legislation of British Columbia, certain persons of Doukhobor origin are denied the franchise.
I am going to bring briefly to the attention of the committee a misunderstanding I found in the elections act committee when I first approached the matter. There seems to be a misunderstanding generally throughout the country, occasioned largely by improper reporting of the circumstances that exist in Kootenay West. I am going to deal briefly with that question as related to the elections act.
There is no question about it, no other immigrant group in Canada presented such a spectacular problem to federal and provincial governments as the Doukhobors, who are a religious sect of Russian origin. There are some seven or eight thousand Doukhobors in Saskatchewan and Alberta who have become more or less successfully adapted to their Canadian environment. There are some ten to twelve thousand persons of Doukhobor origin in Kootenay West and adjacent districts. In order to inform hon. members correctly I must explain that the Doukhobors in British Columbia consist of three main groups. First there is the orthodox element of some six thousand persons, the majority of whom belong to the Union of


Spiritual Communities of Christ and live in the area surrounding the village of Brilliant. These people represent the heart of the Doukhobor community and are a group who aim to retain their traditional language, culture and religious beliefs while making a peaceful adjustment to the Canadian way of life.
Then we have the independent element numbering about three to four thousand persons. This element is composed of individual Doukhobors who have become partially or entirely assimilated. While many of them still pay lip service to the traditional Doukhobor beliefs, they have severed their former ties with Doukhobor organizations and occupy their own properties in the cities and in the country. This is the group that I want to deal with briefly in relation to this bill, Mr. Speaker. Then, finally, there is the group known as the Sons of Freedom, numbering something over two thousand persons. They are uncompromising Doukhobor fundamentalists who tend to react violently against any forces in the Canadian environment which they feel threatens their traditional Doukhobor values. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, with many Canadians the Doukhobor problem tends to be identified almost entirely with the activities of the Sons of Freedom, who refuse to pay rent or taxes and are technically squatters on provincial land.
In 1950, as a result of the disturbances occasioned by the Sons of Freedom, a consultative committee for British Columbia was established under the chairmanship of Dr. MacKenzie, president of the university of British Columbia, composed of several of the staff of that university and representatives nominated by boards of trade at Nelson, Trail and Grand Forks. Before proceeding further, may I say that this committee was formed to study the whole Doukhobor question and make recommendations to the government of British Columbia.
From a personal knowledge of the local situation and a personal knowledge of what these people are doing, I must express my appreciation of the work of the members of the committee, and of the outstanding work that is being performed by former Commissioner Mead of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, former Commissioner Shirras, of the provincial police, and to the Society of Friends, for allowing Mr. Gulley, one of the former United Nations relief administrators in Arabia, to come to the Kootenays to assist in solving this question. I must also express my appreciation of the work being done by the ministerial association of the Nelson district. Only recently I read of a meeting

where large numbers of these people were gathered together with other segments of the population in an effort to bring those two groups together. I must say, Mr. Chairman, that the meetings have been successful to date. There is no question about it that part of the difficulties in Kootenay West are created by the lack of interest other Canadians have taken in the problem they created in the years gone by.
I am also informed that officials of the minister's department are co-operating in this work and have attended meetings to discuss this question with interested persons. I hope this work will continue and be extended, because it presents a great challenge and opportunity to the citizenship branch of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration.
Now that I have briefly reviewed the question may I say that I rise this evening to speak particularly on one aspect of the Douk-hobor problem, namely the great injustice that is continued by the denial of the franchise to this group of independents and others of Doukhobor origin. The statutes of British Columbia prevent a Doukhobor or a person of Doukhobor descent from voting in a provincial election. I want to quote from those statutes. I quote revised statutes of 1948, chapter 106, provincial elections act."
Definition of Doukhobor:	Doukhobor means a
person, male or female, exempted or entitled to claim exemption or who on production of any certificate might have become or would now be entitled to claim exemption from military service by reason of the order of the governor in council of December sixth, 1898, and every descendent of any such person, whether born in the province or elsewhere . . .
Then section 4, clause E, of the provincial elections act, disqualifies "every Doukhobor or person of Doukhobor descent, providing that the provisions of this clause shall not disqualify or render incompetent to vote any person of Doukhobor origin who served in His Majesty's forces" and so on. They are not allowed to vote in a provincial election. Section 14 of the Dominion Elections Act and of the act before us now, the Canada Elections Act, reads as follows:
(2) The following persons are disqualified from voting at an election and incapable of being registered as electors and shall not vote nor be so registered, that is to say-
. . . (j) In any province, every person exempted or entitled to claim exemption or who on production of any certificate might have become or would now be entitled to claim exemption from military service by reason of the order in council of December sixth, 1898, because the doctrines of his religion make him averse to bearing arms, and who is by the law of {hat province disqualified from voting at an election of a member of the legis-tive assembly of that province.
As a result of this combination of provincial and federal legislation, so far as elections
Dominion Elections Act are concerned some considerable group of persons of Doukhobor ancestry are prevented from exercising the franchise, regardless of the fact that they are willing to accept the full responsibilities of a Canadian citizen. What are the types of persons disqualified? There are a good many persons of Doukhobor ancestry who are completely detached from the Doukhobor community and are working in industries in my constituency, but who are not permitted to exercise the franchise in Canada. There are businessmen in my constituency, members of boards of trade, members of Rotary and other service clubs, members of churches-members, I think, of several churches to which members of the House of Commons belong-who are absolutely denied the franchise because they are of Doukhobor origin. I have, of course, in my constituency a number of university graduates, doctors of philosophy, masters of arts, bachelors of science, who are denied the franchise because they are of Doukhobor descent, but who have completely divorced themselves from the Doukhobor community.
In addition I know of a number of Doukhobor parents who persuaded their sons to join the armed forces during the second world war. There were considerable numbers of Doukhobors in the armed forces. Anyone who understands the Doukhobors realizes that that is something for the parents of young Doukhobors to do. Regardless of their desire-and in that case, from their point of view, an extreme demonstration of their desire-to be Canadian citizens, those parents at the present time are denied the franchise.
Then again, the grandchildren of Doukhobors whose grandmothers were Canadians of united empire loyalist stock are denied the franchise under the present legislation. I am speaking particularly of this group of three or four thousand persons, the independents, who are not associated with the orthodox community and are completely opposed to and dissociated from the Sons of Freedom. Mr. Speaker, in Saskatchewan and, I think, in every other province in Canada these people are permitted the franchise; that is, people of Doukhobor origin who are willing to accept the responsibilities of Canadian citizenship. I am making this particular appeal to the house tonight with the realization that it is not possible to secure an amendment to the act at the present time. I do so in order to inform hon. members of the situation so that when this act comes under revision in the near future, and when circumstances are opportune, something will be done about this continuing injustice.
Canada approved- the universal declaration of human rights at the general assembly of

Dominion Elections Act the United Nations with certain reservations based on provincial rights under our federal constitution. What does article 21 of this declaration say? It reads as follows:
1.	Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chozen representatives.
2.	Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.
3.	The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.
Recently in the Ontario legislature a bill was introduced with respect to certain trade union legislation, and the United Nations declaration of human rights was quoted by the minister presenting that legislation to the house as one of the reasons the legislation was being introduced. Not long ago in California the district court of appeal upset a state law that caused discrimination against a certain race, and that district court of appeal judge based his decision on the universal declaration of human rights as adopted at the general assembly of the United Nations. In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, federal and provincial legislation denying a franchise to these Canadian citizens is unconstitutional and I am convinced that an appeal to the privy council would be successful.	[DOT]
I presented this situation to the elections act committee, and after I made a very similar explanation to that which I have made here this evening I was very pleased to see that committee members were sympathetic to my representations, and understood the question much more fully than they had prior to that time. When the committee presented its report on June 27, 1951 they included in it the resolution I had moved and which the committee had adopted as follows:
That the government give consideration to extending the franchise to certain persons of Douk-hobor origin and the advisability of consultation with the government of the province of British Columbia in this matter.
The committee met this session. This bill is the result of their meeting. I took the opportunity then to raise the question and find out what had happened. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Harris) very kindly stated this to the committee:
The committee at the last session passed a resolution which asked the government to give consideration to apDroaching the provincial government of British Columbia with respect to the possible voting of Doukhobors. The form of the resolution was such that we did not feel any compulsion to approach them; it was merely that we would give consideration to approaching them, and we did that. Having in mind, however, that at this particular time the question of the movement of the Doukhobors from one location to another was a matter of some concern to the people in British Columbia as well as to the government we felt that

we would be injecting another note which possibly might not be to the advantage of the government in solving what I think we all agree is a very difficult problem, and, accordingly, we have not ap-proacned them. I hope that statement has nothing in it in any way discourteous to the mover of the resolution, because it has only been carried to that extent, but it is felt that this is not the time that such a matter should be proceeded with.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Might I ask the minister a question?


Hon.   Mr. Harris@: Yes.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Are we to take it from that that
action on tne resolution is merely deferred until circumstances are more opportune?
And the minister replied yes. Because of my knowledge of the circumstances, Mr. Speaker, I think there is justification for some temporary delay in this important question because there are very difficult matters to be solved in the near months and years ahead. But I do hope that at the first opportunity, when the situation has improved in British Columbia and the work of this committee has been more nearly completed, the government and the members of this house will give early consideration to remedying this injustice to a large group of persons who want to be full Canadians. I realize, Mr. Speaker, that if these people are to receive justice there must be co-operation between the federal government and the government of British Columbia. I know that in dealing with this matter this government has to give some consideration to the present problem being faced by the government of British Columbia. But once again I urge that action be not long delayed. We cannot in justice deny the franchise to these Canadians much longer.
(Translation) :
Mr. Jean-Fran^ois Poulioi (Temiscouata):
Mr. Speaker, looking at today's order paper, we notice that the French version of this bill has not been produced. Since it is a translation and because there is even one section of the bill, section 58, where new French expressions are used, it seems important to me that we should have both versions of the bill, especially the French version, so that we may know exactly what designation is given to the same functions.
The other day I spoke somewhat heatedly of the translation of laws. I will read section 58-I have just now received, the French version of the bill-where it is seen that certain changes were madie in the new legislation:
The French version of the said act is amended by striking out the expressions "officier-rappor-teur" "sous-officier rapporteur", "officier rapporteur special" and "sous-officier rapporteur special" wherever they appear herein and substituting therefor, in each case, the expressions "directeur du scrutin", "sous-directeur du scrutin" and "sous-directeur special du scrutin", respectively.

The latter terms are unknown to those who look after the administration and enforcement of the elections act throughout the country. At all times, town clerks and others have been appointed "sous-officiers rapporteurs" (deputy returning officers)-that is how they have always been called-and it seems to me that when a French or English expression is sanctioned in the act, it should become a Canadian expression.
I understand that in the United States, whenever even a slang expression has been in the statutes for twenty-five years, it becomes official. I feel that here this is not necessary, and one cannot say that certain French terms are anglicisms, as long as they are accepted and authorized by the act.
I wonder why changes are made in terms and phrases that have iheir place and, especially, have a meaning. But what strikes me most, Mr. Speaker-and I will quote only one instance here-is that two different terms are used in the act to designate the same thing. For instance, on page 124 of Votes and Proceedings, in rule 33, the revising officer is called a "reviseur", while on page 120 he is called an "officier reviseur". That is very odd.
It seems to me the designation applied to someone carrying out the same duties should always be the same and, in my opinion, the use of two different designations is apt to be confusing.
I have also noticed that, in many sections, the French version of the act is bilingual since certain terms belong to the French language while others belong to the language of bureaucracy. Whenever a designation belonging to the language of bureaucracy is used, ''expression frangaise" is put in parentheses as an explanation or comment, in order that people may not be too baffled.
I will not insist too much on this subject since I do not intend to take up too much of the time of the house. But, Mr. Speaker, the question is extremely serious since I have the greatest respect for the law and I hold that it should be as immutable as possible.
In many circumstances I have complained of the far too great number of amendments made to the law. It runs past our eyes like a film. It lacks stability and that greatly affects jurisprudence.
Still, Mr. Speaker, I do take some consolation from the reading of the amendments to the elections act. Electors are not called 94699-122J
Dominion Elections Act "commettants" but "electeurs". It seems to me that immense progress has been made. In Hansard electors are called "commettants", here they are called "electeurs"; that is some progress anyway. I will not stop there; I warn the house against the work of translators in general. I am informed that in the translation of the Criminal Code, from English into French, there are a great many new expressions which will contribute a great deal to confuse all those who have to interpret and enforce the law. I hope the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson), who is now in his seat, will see to it that no changes are made in the terms now used in the French version of the Criminal Code and of the other statutes. Statutory law is complicated enough as it is now and, in my opinion, it would be absurd to make it absolutely incomprehensible by using new expressions unknown to and not understood by the public.
Tonight I have appealed, as best I could, to the common sense of my colleagues and to the legal experience of those whom it is my privilege to number among my fellow members of the bar. It is my hope that each one of them will see to it that those who want to do better than others are prevented from defacing or mutilating the law.


Charles-Arthur Dumoulin Cannon: Mr. Speaker, I have only one or two words to say. I wish to support the remarks made by the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) and insist on the importance, for lawyers and those who deal with the administration of the law, of not changing the terms that have been used in legislation for a great number of years and which have been interpreted by our courts, because changing those terms would naturally result in changing jurisprudence and in preventing its application.
Now the hon. member who spoke before me said that in preparing the French version of certain legislation, the meaning of the English version was not being properly rendered. In other words, there was legislating done in preparing the French version. We have a striking example of that in the bill now before us. I was a member of the elections act committee. When we dealt with section 58 of that act and when it was suggested that the words "officier rapporteur" should be replaced by the term "directeur du scrutin", I put forward the view that such a change should not be made for the same reasons as those already mentioned by the hon. member for Temiscouata. Another

Business of the House
reason which prompted me to take that stand was that the words "directeur du scrutin" do not correspond exactly to the meaning of the English term "returning officer", whereas the term "officier rapporteur" is, in my opinion, more accurate. If the use of the term "directeur du scrutin" in the French version is insisted upon, the English version should also be changed so as to read "director of voting".
I gave that example to the house in order to illustrate what has just been put forward by the hon. member who spoke before me. (Text):
On motion of Mr. Fair the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Alphonse Fournier: Tomorrow we will take up Bill No. 41, to amend the Dominion Elections Act; Bill No. 42, respecting the National Gallery of Canada; Bill No. 8, to
amend the North Fraser Harbour Commissioners Act. Those three bills we intend to proceed with in the morning.
Then Bill No. 43, to amend the Civil Service Act; the resolution of the Minister of Trade and Commerce concerning the provision for short-term credit to grain producers in the prairie provinces; Bill No. 18, to provide for the establishment of an agricultural products board; Bill No. 36, to amend the Combines Investigation Act; Bill No. 23, to amend the Government Annuities Act.
From Bill No. 43, of the list I have given, I cannot at this time state in what order they will be called.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to the order of the house passed on November 2, 1951.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, December 14, 1951